Geocaching Ethics

[+KrillKat]

We are a group of 4 geocachers and are getting ready to do our first "power trail" or "numbers run." It consists of a road that has 250 geocaches, each spaced 1000 feet apart. This is only for the numbers, but we wanted to have this type of experience at least once. It was our idea for the four of us to start at one end and go to the other, assigning various tasks to each of the 4 people, signing all the logs. It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

[+CanadianRockies]

When you look in the mirror, do you want to see the face of someone who logged a "Found It" for a cache they didn't find? Some people have no problem with this. Most do.

[+kunarion]

It was our idea for the four of us to start at one end and go to the other, assigning various tasks to each of the 4 people, signing all the logs.

I'd rather do that. I'd like to challenge myself to actually find all of them, with skill and planning. If somebody else finds it instead of me, it's almost like somebody else finds it instead of me. Almost.

 

And I can't figure out how everybody always finds them all, every time. I attempted a 24 cache power trail, found 4, DNF'd a few others, then lost interest -- and this one was slightly more of a variety style series than a "power trail". I guess I ain't power trail material.

 

I've asked in these Forums before... "Did you truly go get all those caches, didn't skip any at all?", and got the insistent reply "Absolutely, we didn't skip any, found every cache and signed it, no funny stuff". Which is weird, considering all the posts about all the little tricks. I know it doesn't matter what everybody else thinks, but FYI, everybody else thinks that legitimately finding all those caches is the exception.

Edited May 8, 2013 by kunarion

[+captnemo]

When you look in the mirror, do you want to see the face of someone who logged a "Found It" for a cache they didn't find? Some people have no problem with this. Most do.

+1

 

When it comes to Power Trails the only thing that is "Bad" is armchair logging and I'm not so sure that's out. 3 cache Monte, Log swaping, Cache swaping and now two cars from each end? Don't know what it is but to me it's not Geocaching and Yes, I tried it, got borred and stopped after 62 finds.

 

On the other hand if want to do it and find you like it go for it.

Edited May 8, 2013 by captnemo

[+kunarion]

I tried it, got borred and stopped after 62 finds.

How many groups has this happened to? Suppose you get to Number 62 and everyone is fed up with the whole thing... does everyone make a secret pact to log them all anyway and just go get a drink instead?

 

Just wondering. I'm imagining everyone doing pretty well til someone starts loudly whining “Can we quit this? I'm tired... It's booooring”, and kind of kills the enthusiasm for the whole plan. But enough about me.

[+L0ne.R]

I suppose the honest way to do a power trail is to go out on your own with no help from a team and physically find and open and sign each PT cache that you locate.

[+J Grouchy]

I suppose the honest way to do a power trail is to go out on your own with no help from a team and physically find and open and sign each PT cache that you locate.

 

^^ this

 

I don't understand how suddenly the "rules" of caching go out the window when you string more than a handful of caches along a route. I could never do a power trail because the OCD part of me would want to SEE the cache and sign the log and I don't have enough freedom, time or patience to do that for one of these PTs consisting of hundreds of caches. I don't even like it when muggles prevent me from grabbing and signing the cache, or if the log is too wet for me to sign and I don't have a way to add paper to the log. Those nag at me...so logging dozens or hundreds online that I didn't see, physically handle or sign would probably drive me nuts.

[+kunarion]

I could never do a power trail because the OCD part of me would want to SEE the cache and sign the log and I don't have enough freedom, time or patience to do that for one of these PTs consisting of hundreds of caches.

I can't imagine thinking, "Let's go visit that place so we can hurry to get out of that place."

 

OK, maybe the dental office.

Edited May 8, 2013 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

Yes, I would also consider it cheating.

[Mr.Yuck]

We are a group of 4 geocachers and are getting ready to do our first "power trail" or "numbers run." It consists of a road that has 250 geocaches, each spaced 1000 feet apart. This is only for the numbers, but we wanted to have this type of experience at least once. It was our idea for the four of us to start at one end and go to the other, assigning various tasks to each of the 4 people, signing all the logs. It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

 

In these forums, you'll most likely receive near universal "it's cheating" responses. Now if you were to ask a whole gang of 10,000+ find cachers who have done several power trails, you'd probably get a different answer.

 

Note: this is not to say every 10,000+ find cacher would "split up" to do a power trail. By the way, put me down for everyone in the 4 person team to be present at every cache.

 

And you know, I'm not being ridiculously hardcore on that either, one member of the 4 person team could be 20 feet away in the general area when the cache is pulled out, and one person could sign for everyone in the team.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[+wimseyguy]

It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

Yes, I would also consider it cheating.

 

+1 You don't have to get out of the car and fondle every single film can/bison tube when caching in a group. Especially the really easy ones when someone probably has it in hand before the driver can get his belt unbuckled and move around the car. But you should be in a position where you could if your OCD demanded it.

Edited May 8, 2013 by wimseyguy

[JASTA 11]

If you're asking the question here, you probably already know the answer.

 

Let your conscience be your guide.

[vagabond]

I suppose the honest way to do a power trail is to go out on your own with no help from a team and physically find and open and sign each PT cache that you locate.

 

^^^^

 

That's the way my wife and I do them.

 

It us 2 trips to Laughlin Nv. to complete the route 66 run

[+tozainamboku]

I suppose the honest way to do a power trail is to go out on your own with no help from a team and physically find and open and sign each PT cache that you locate.

 

^^ this

 

I don't understand how suddenly the "rules" of caching go out the window when you string more than a handful of caches along a route. I could never do a power trail because the OCD part of me would want to SEE the cache and sign the log and I don't have enough freedom, time or patience to do that for one of these PTs consisting of hundreds of caches. I don't even like it when muggles prevent me from grabbing and signing the cache, or if the log is too wet for me to sign and I don't have a way to add paper to the log. Those nag at me...so logging dozens or hundreds online that I didn't see, physically handle or sign would probably drive me nuts.

^^ NOT THIS

I never understand why some people believe there are "rules" of geocaching that would say you must find caches on your own and not part of a team that splits responsibilities one way or another. NO SUCH RULES EXIST.

 

There may be some people who are obessively compulsive about seeing the cache and physically writing their name in the log, who might decide that they wouldn't log a find online without that. Other people see geocaching as fun activity that can be more fun when done with friends, as a team, with responsiblities for finding, opening, writing in logs, and driving split up.

 

There are some people who believe that the online find count you get for logging a find online is a score, and as other sports that are scored, they want to have a definition of what should count. The may be bothered when someone logs a cache that they didn't find or even one they didn't sign. But the find count isn't a score. While it shouldn't be abused (e.g. couch potato logs on caches you or your team never found) it doesn't make an iota of difference if team members log all the caches on power trail that the team found.

 

That said, many teams decide that everyone on the team should go to all the caches together, as caching together is more fun than splitting up and having different parts of the team finding different caches. Making the power trail into a competition of how quickly can your team can find all the caches seems silly to me. But putting a group together and spending a day geocaching with each other seems like it might be fun.

[+bpwilldo]

Gee, SP and I are sorta new at this. I started on my own and she quickly joined. We most always go together. I find it boring now to go alone. I guess we are a team. I log the find, no matter who makes the actual find. She does not have an account so there are not two finds logged. Are we a team? Should I not take credit for her finds? Does it matter to anyone but us? I've felt it didn't matter.

 

Is the issue that more than one "found it" is logged when only "found it" happened? If so, who cares?

 

On the other hand, I have gotten to dislike power trail/series. We don't intend to hunt them. All they do is push out other caches so far down it takes much scrolling to find the others. I wish there was an easy way to ignore series caches...

[+ATXTracker]

One of the things that is fun about geocaching is the array of experiences. It's not always the same. You can spend some time solving puzzles, then switch to long hikes, and then go on a power trail with a team. Each experience can be a little different and the 'rules' can bend to be appropriate to the experience, I think.

 

This is a good thread, I think:

Forum Thread on Team Finds

[+CanadianRockies]

Gee, SP and I are sorta new at this. I started on my own and she quickly joined. We most always go together. I find it boring now to go alone. I guess we are a team. I log the find, no matter who makes the actual find. She does not have an account so there are not two finds logged. Are we a team? Should I not take credit for her finds? Does it matter to anyone but us? I've felt it didn't matter.

 

Is the issue that more than one "found it" is logged when only "found it" happened? If so, who cares?

Very few people have an issue with all members of a group logging a "Found It" when one member of the group finds the cache, as long as all members are reasonably close to the cache when it is found.

 

On the other hand, very few people believe it is legitimate for you to claim a "Found It" when a member of your group finds a cache that is miles away. You can do this, and I suppose a few people actually do. But if a cache owner learns about it, then they can delete any such finds.

[+St.Matthew]

I'm a "to each his own" sort of Geocacher, but at some point, a line is crossed and it becomes cheating. I consider logging geocaches that you never found to be cheating.

 

Would you do this in other Geocaching situations that weren't power trail related? Would Joe go to the east side of the city and Susie to the west side of the city, yet you both log them all? How can that not be cheating?

[+bpwilldo]

The responses I am reading are not logical. Unless you, the found it logger, actually found the cache, you didn't find it. Simple. It doesn't matter if you are 10 feet or 10 miles away. The question is ethics. If you feel it is ethical to claim to have done something you didn't actually do, then do it. It don't matter to me...

[AZcachemeister]

I suppose the honest way to do a power trail is to go out on your own with no help from a team and physically find and open and sign each PT cache that you locate.

 

^^ this

 

I don't understand how suddenly the "rules" of caching go out the window when you string more than a handful of caches along a route. I could never do a power trail because the OCD part of me would want to SEE the cache and sign the log and I don't have enough freedom, time or patience to do that for one of these PTs consisting of hundreds of caches. I don't even like it when muggles prevent me from grabbing and signing the cache, or if the log is too wet for me to sign and I don't have a way to add paper to the log. Those nag at me...so logging dozens or hundreds online that I didn't see, physically handle or sign would probably drive me nuts.

^^ NOT THIS

I never understand why some people believe there are "rules" of geocaching that would say you must find caches on your own and not part of a team that splits responsibilities one way or another. NO SUCH RULES EXIST.

 

There may be some people who are obessively compulsive about seeing the cache and physically writing their name in the log, who might decide that they wouldn't log a find online without that. Other people see geocaching as fun activity that can be more fun when done with friends, as a team, with responsiblities for finding, opening, writing in logs, and driving split up.

 

There are some people who believe that the online find count you get for logging a find online is a score, and as other sports that are scored, they want to have a definition of what should count. The may be bothered when someone logs a cache that they didn't find or even one they didn't sign. But the find count isn't a score. While it shouldn't be abused (e.g. couch potato logs on caches you or your team never found) it doesn't make an iota of difference if team members log all the caches on power trail that the team found.

 

That said, many teams decide that everyone on the team should go to all the caches together, as caching together is more fun than splitting up and having different parts of the team finding different caches. Making the power trail into a competition of how quickly can your team can find all the caches seems silly to me. But putting a group together and spending a day geocaching with each other seems like it might be fun.

 

Yeah, just drive down the road and tap on the brakes as you pass each cache location...that's good enough...and fun too!

[AZcachemeister]

I'm a "to each his own" sort of Geocacher, but at some point, a line is crossed and it becomes cheating. I consider logging geocaches that you never found to be cheating.

 

Would you do this in other Geocaching situations that weren't power trail related? Would Joe go to the east side of the city and Susie to the west side of the city, yet you both log them all? How can that not be cheating?

 

It's not cheating because your online find count is not a score...yeah, right.

[+J Grouchy]

I suppose the honest way to do a power trail is to go out on your own with no help from a team and physically find and open and sign each PT cache that you locate.

 

^^ this

 

I don't understand how suddenly the "rules" of caching go out the window when you string more than a handful of caches along a route. I could never do a power trail because the OCD part of me would want to SEE the cache and sign the log and I don't have enough freedom, time or patience to do that for one of these PTs consisting of hundreds of caches. I don't even like it when muggles prevent me from grabbing and signing the cache, or if the log is too wet for me to sign and I don't have a way to add paper to the log. Those nag at me...so logging dozens or hundreds online that I didn't see, physically handle or sign would probably drive me nuts.

^^ NOT THIS

I never understand why some people believe there are "rules" of geocaching that would say you must find caches on your own and not part of a team that splits responsibilities one way or another. NO SUCH RULES EXIST.

 

There may be some people who are obessively compulsive about seeing the cache and physically writing their name in the log, who might decide that they wouldn't log a find online without that. Other people see geocaching as fun activity that can be more fun when done with friends, as a team, with responsiblities for finding, opening, writing in logs, and driving split up.

 

There are some people who believe that the online find count you get for logging a find online is a score, and as other sports that are scored, they want to have a definition of what should count. The may be bothered when someone logs a cache that they didn't find or even one they didn't sign. But the find count isn't a score. While it shouldn't be abused (e.g. couch potato logs on caches you or your team never found) it doesn't make an iota of difference if team members log all the caches on power trail that the team found.

 

That said, many teams decide that everyone on the team should go to all the caches together, as caching together is more fun than splitting up and having different parts of the team finding different caches. Making the power trail into a competition of how quickly can your team can find all the caches seems silly to me. But putting a group together and spending a day geocaching with each other seems like it might be fun.

 

Guess the fact that I said "rules" instead of rules (without quotes) went over your head. I'm no stickler for rules, but not technically finding, holding and signing the cache, to me, goes against the spirit of caching...

 

Do it however the heck you want. I just told you how I personally would do it, not how I expect everyone else to.

[+tallglenn]

I did a PT in Florida once and noticed the semi-famous people who did it just before me had missed signing quite a few of the logs. They didn't miss logging them online though. My opinion of these people dropped like a rock. It doesn't seem fair that someone can sit in the back of a Jeep, drink Diet Coke, and rack up numbers while I'm busting my arse to SL on every one. I wouldn't feel right doing it any other way though. It takes me days to do what others do in hours. Just enjoy your day, doing what you love. No need to rush or impress anyone but yourself.

[+fizzymagic]

<long and entirely predictable rant snipped>

 

Guess the fact that I said "rules" instead of rules (without quotes) went over your head.

 

You broke an important forum rule: you gave toz a chance to do his favorite rant.

 

I have long since learned to take the numbers for those who rack them up with a grain of salt. I am not particularly interested in bragging about my numbers, so it doesn't really bother me. I know that when I accomplish something that matters to me, I can remember that I actually did it.

 

And really, that's what the stats are for. Memories. Not bragging.

Edited May 9, 2013 by fizzymagic

[+The_Incredibles_]

It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

 

I view this as cheating, also. However, you're really only cheating yourself. You'll *know* you didn't find 1/2 the caches you logged.

 

I think if you're going as a group, you should all hop out of the car and go to GZ together. Someone's bound to spot it first, but you'll all be there. Then you can all sign the log with your individual caching names and move along.

[+Bigmada]

If the cache isn't in my hand I didn't find it.

[+larryc43230]

If the cache isn't in my hand I didn't find it.

^ ^ ^

 

This. With one addendum. If, for any reason, I can't sign the log, I also won't log a find.

 

A few years ago, a caching buddy and I found a cache on a really cold winter day. It was a waterproof match container that had been hidden in a hollow spot in a huge tree stump. The hollow spot had filled up with water and the water had frozen. The cache was entombed in ice. We could both see the cache container, but in spite of our best efforts we were never able to extract the cache from the ice. It remained entombed till the spring thaw. We both logged DNF for the cache. That's been my rule since my first day of caching and still is.

 

I've had several friends invite me along on a power trail run. I'm not interested, and I doubt if I ever will be. It's just not my definition of caching, and doesn't strike me as a whole lot of fun. I'd rather spend that time hiking five miles to a scenic spot for one well-earned smiley.

 

--Larry

[+Don_J]

We are a group of 4 geocachers and are getting ready to do our first "power trail" or "numbers run." It consists of a road that has 250 geocaches, each spaced 1000 feet apart. This is only for the numbers, but we wanted to have this type of experience at least once. It was our idea for the four of us to start at one end and go to the other, assigning various tasks to each of the 4 people, signing all the logs. It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

 

In these forums, you'll most likely receive near universal "it's cheating" responses. Now if you were to ask a whole gang of 10,000+ find cachers who have done several power trails, you'd probably get a different answer.

 

Note: this is not to say every 10,000+ find cacher would "split up" to do a power trail. By the way, put me down for everyone in the 4 person team to be present at every cache.

 

And you know, I'm not being ridiculously hardcore on that either, one member of the 4 person team could be 20 feet away in the general area when the cache is pulled out, and one person could sign for everyone in the team.

 

At a recent event I had this discussion with a few 10,000+ cachers and they all agreed that it would be cheating. Then we all kind of glanced across the room to the guy that had bragged that he had done just that. I honestly don't care if this guy logs finds on 500 caches in the desert that he never even stopped the car for, but I lost all respect for him as he had convinced a few newer cachers that it was okay for them to help him do so. Not that he really needed any help. As far as I am concerned, it's no different than armchair logging.

 

Starting at opposite ends and meeting in the middle and stopping means that you found half of the caches. How anyone can rationalize that it's okay to log the other half is beyond my comprehension.

[+redsox_mark]

It has been suggested to us that it would be better to have 2 start at one end, 2 start at the other and meet in the middle, thus cutting our time to complete the task in half. This seems like cheating. I would be curious to know how other cachers view this. Thanks!

 

I view this as cheating, also. However, you're really only cheating yourself. You'll *know* you didn't find 1/2 the caches you logged.

 

I think if you're going as a group, you should all hop out of the car and go to GZ together. Someone's bound to spot it first, but you'll all be there. Then you can all sign the log with your individual caching names and move along.

 

The only real "power trail" I've done I did like this. There were two of us; we both jumped out and searched for each one and signed both names. We found 132 caches. But in this case the hides varied and they also generally required a short walk.

 

However, I don't have an issue with people doing it differently. Certainly on a real "mega" PT (like the ET trail - though I've not done anything like that) - if the caches are so easy that you can spot the location from a distance and park right by it, it seems reasonable to me to take turns who jumps out of the car. By the time the driver would get out of the car the cache would be found anyway.

 

Splitting up the team is a bit different. I can understand it (and even accept it). They are working as a team and this is what they decided. But it does mean cachers logging finds on caches when they didn't even visit the location. I wouldn't do that myself.

[+CanadianRockies]

Splitting up the team is a bit different. I can understand it (and even accept it). They are working as a team and this is what they decided. But it does mean cachers logging finds on caches when they didn't even visit the location. I wouldn't do that myself.

I'm glad you understand this kind of thinking, because I'd like to as well. Seriously. Is it simply that numbers are so important that actually finding the caches doesn't matter? Is it peer pressure from other team members? Can you shed some additional light on this issue, please?

[+dprovan]

I'm glad you understand this kind of thinking, because I'd like to as well. Seriously. Is it simply that numbers are so important that actually finding the caches doesn't matter? Is it peer pressure from other team members? Can you shed some additional light on this issue, please?

I think they see the entire series as one thing, hence they think it makes sense to divide up the effort by finding various parts of that one thing in the same way that, for a normal cache, most teams are OK with just one person finding and picking up the cache. In the latter case, everyone logs the cache anyway, so they feel that in the former case, it's reasonable for everyone to log the entire series. I doubt even they know to what extent they sincerely believe that and to what extent they're just rationalizing in a desire for bigger numbers.

[+redsox_mark]

Splitting up the team is a bit different. I can understand it (and even accept it). They are working as a team and this is what they decided. But it does mean cachers logging finds on caches when they didn't even visit the location. I wouldn't do that myself.

I'm glad you understand this kind of thinking, because I'd like to as well. Seriously. Is it simply that numbers are so important that actually finding the caches doesn't matter? Is it peer pressure from other team members? Can you shed some additional light on this issue, please?

 

It is the team aspect. Combined with the fact that on a typical power trail like this the caches are all the same. A team decides they want to do a large power trail. Their goal is to find and get their team signature in all those caches. Because of the large numbers involved (and the time it will take to do it), they will think of ways to make it quicker.

 

One thing they may think of is doing it together, but taking turns and having specific roles. So for a section person A drives, B finds and opens, C signs. Some people will think that is OK; others think that A should get out of the car and sign every one.

 

To me it's not that big a jump to using 2 cars. That's why I say I can understand it. But it does cross the line where cachers are claiming finds on caches where they did not even visit the specific location. I wouldn't do that myself.

[+tozainamboku]

Splitting up the team is a bit different. I can understand it (and even accept it). They are working as a team and this is what they decided. But it does mean cachers logging finds on caches when they didn't even visit the location. I wouldn't do that myself.

I'm glad you understand this kind of thinking, because I'd like to as well. Seriously. Is it simply that numbers are so important that actually finding the caches doesn't matter? Is it peer pressure from other team members? Can you shed some additional light on this issue, please?

I have to agree that I personally don't see the reason to log 1000 caches when you were on part of the team that found the first 500 and a different part of the team found the next 500. If you are trying to log that the team found 1000 cache why not create a team account to log all the caches and have individuals log only the cache that they found?

 

Perhaps there is some reluctance to create sock-puppet accounts for the sole purpose of recording a team accomplishment on a power trail? It may seem easier to just have all the team memebers log all the caches with cut and paste "Found as part of Team X" logs.

 

What I have trouble understanding is the view that the sole purpose of logging online is to add one to your find count, and that the coveting of numbers induces people people to practices such as logging finds for caches found only by someone else on their team. To me the purpose of the online log is to share geocaching experiences. While I wouldn't log an experience of finding a cache that I hadn't been to, I have logged finds where I was with a large group and someone else in the group found the cache and signed the log with a team name. Perhaps because I am already going to burn in hell for violating the tenets of the cache puritans by logging finds when I didn't personally sign the physical log, it doesn't bother me when a team decides to split up but still have each member log all the caches found.

[+CanadianRockies]

Perhaps because I am already going to burn in hell for violating the tenets of the cache puritans by logging finds when I didn't personally sign the physical log, it doesn't bother me when a team decides to split up but still have each member log all the caches found.

I can see different shades of a color (e.g., vermillion, crimson) being the same color (i.e., red). But I don't understand why someone would refer to a yellow object as being red.

 

For geocaching, I can see how different people have different standards for claiming a find (e.g., signing the log, being close while someone else signs your name on the log). But I don't understand why someone would claim a find for a cache they are miles away from. To me, that just stretches the definition of "find" too far to be meaningful. Yellow is not red, and I'd find it objectionable if someone used them synonymously.

 

Or you could think of the definition of "find" as a rubber band. You can stretch it only so far before it just snaps. Even you admit there are limits and the smiley "shouldn't be abused (e.g. couch potato logs on caches you or your team never found)."

Edited May 10, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+Thrak]

I once ran into some folks who have HUGE numbers of finds listed who were searching for a cache. My wife and I located the cache on the opposite side of the road from where this "team" was searching. We told them we had found it. As we were signing the log the other folks left. They didn't physically touch the cache nor did they sign the log. I checked and, sure enough, they listed it as a find. It's my feeling that, if they are in the area when a cache is found or, if they feel they "would have found it if it was really there", they claim the find.

 

What other folks do doesn't really affect me. What I do does affect me. I give back extra change at the store. I've seen people drop money and told them about it rather than just picking it up for myself.

 

I've logged a DNF on more than one cache listed as a 1/1.

 

If I log a cache as found it means that I have personally signed the log. For me, that's the only way to go.

[Clan Riffster]

It was our idea for the four of us to start at one end and go to the other, assigning various tasks to each of the 4 people, signing all the logs.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you are the wheel man for this trip. You drive 1000', pull over, wait 10 seconds, drive 1000', pull over, wait 10 seconds, repeat ad nauseum. And for driving near these caches, you plan to claim them as found? How is that any less "cheating" than having two cars starting from each end? In both cases, you would not be actually hunting/finding any caches, but you would be driving by a bunch. The same applies if you are the navigator. Or the person signing the cache and passing it to the actual cache finder.

 

At each stop, only one person actually looks for each cache.

 

Yet all four of you will claim it?

 

If driving near a cache is the new standard for a find, I could increase my found count by tens of thousands of smilies.

[+Don_J]

I'm glad you understand this kind of thinking, because I'd like to as well. Seriously. Is it simply that numbers are so important that actually finding the caches doesn't matter? Is it peer pressure from other team members? Can you shed some additional light on this issue, please?

I think they see the entire series as one thing, hence they think it makes sense to divide up the effort by finding various parts of that one thing in the same way that, for a normal cache, most teams are OK with just one person finding and picking up the cache. In the latter case, everyone logs the cache anyway, so they feel that in the former case, it's reasonable for everyone to log the entire series. I doubt even they know to what extent they sincerely believe that and to what extent they're just rationalizing in a desire for bigger numbers.

 

I'm of the opinion that when in a group, as long as all are present and participating, log the cache. If I were to do an ET Hwy type power trail and I fell asleep in the back seat for a 100 caches, I wouldn't log those 100 caches as I was no longer participating in the group effort to find them. In other words, I would apply MY exact same set of ethics that I would apply to any group caching adventure.

 

I'm also of the opinion that if we are hiking and everyone can see the cache hanging from the branch 50' off the trail, there is no reason for everyone to go tromping through the grass just to sign the log. I have also been on group caching hikes where myself and a few others became separated from the main group. At that point, we have always considered ourselves to now be a separate group and we stop and find all of the caches, even though we know that our main groups name is already on the log. My set of ethics would not allow me to simply hike on by and still log the cache online, and I've never been in a situation where the others with me thought differently.

 

As to the OP, I think that if a team splits up to find caches that a miles apart at the same time, it is no longer a team. It is two teams. If I am in one team, I wouldn't even consider logging caches that the other team found. If I had just driven 100 miles into the desert when the group suddenly makes this decision, fine, I'm not going against the majority, but I'm still only going to log the caches that I participated in finding.

[+Don_J]

Splitting up the team is a bit different. I can understand it (and even accept it). They are working as a team and this is what they decided. But it does mean cachers logging finds on caches when they didn't even visit the location. I wouldn't do that myself.

I'm glad you understand this kind of thinking, because I'd like to as well. Seriously. Is it simply that numbers are so important that actually finding the caches doesn't matter? Is it peer pressure from other team members? Can you shed some additional light on this issue, please?

 

It is the team aspect. Combined with the fact that on a typical power trail like this the caches are all the same. A team decides they want to do a large power trail. Their goal is to find and get their team signature in all those caches. Because of the large numbers involved (and the time it will take to do it), they will think of ways to make it quicker.

 

One thing they may think of is doing it together, but taking turns and having specific roles. So for a section person A drives, B finds and opens, C signs. Some people will think that is OK; others think that A should get out of the car and sign every one.

 

To me it's not that big a jump to using 2 cars. That's why I say I can understand it. But it does cross the line where cachers are claiming finds on caches where they did not even visit the specific location. I wouldn't do that myself.

 

I'm okay with the driver being considered part of the effort. Heck, on a HWY power trail, he has the most important duty which is to keep the rest of the group alive.

[+PapaMinion]

I've done 2 major power trails for a combined total of 425 finds. The first trail was just myself and my brother, while the second trail was the two of us and two other cachers in our area. Both runs, only one person physically got out of the car to grab the cache and sign the log. Each time we used a group name for the caches we logged (with the blessing of the trails' creators each time). For our group of 4, each of us was assigned a task. My brother drove, I was the navigator (and sometime jumper), and, depending on the side of the road, the two in back were the jumpers. Caches were logged as found when the container and log was shown to the group. Yes, we all didn't get out of the car, but considering the hide types (film canisters and preforms either attached to sign posts or utility poles in plain sight), it would have been found before anyone else would have gotten out of the car. A lot of times you could see it from the road but we still jumped out and signed our team name all the same. I never once questioned whether what I was doing was wrong or unethical (in the spirit of the game). And prior to actual involvement with these power trails, I initially thought there was nothing wrong with a team splitting up in the manner suggested in the OP. But I've since had my eyes opened. The difference between what we do and what the OP would have done is I actually saw the caches. I was actually at the GZ for each one of the caches (the furthest GZ being maybe 10 feet from the road). I could say what container was at each GZ. I could personally verify that the cache was physically touched, log was signed, and cache was rehid. The scenario in the OP wouldn't be able to say that. They would only be able to testify to the caches they were physically at, and then have to take the word of the others. That, to me, is wrong. But since there aren't any rules and no way to win this game, I won't begrudge anyone who does this or think of them any differently. Would I participate in this manner of play? No. But that is my choice.

[+Don_J]

I once ran into some folks who have HUGE numbers of finds listed who were searching for a cache. My wife and I located the cache on the opposite side of the road from where this "team" was searching. We told them we had found it. As we were signing the log the other folks left. They didn't physically touch the cache nor did they sign the log. I checked and, sure enough, they listed it as a find. It's my feeling that, if they are in the area when a cache is found or, if they feel they "would have found it if it was really there", they claim the find.

 

What other folks do doesn't really affect me. What I do does affect me. I give back extra change at the store. I've seen people drop money and told them about it rather than just picking it up for myself.

 

I've logged a DNF on more than one cache listed as a 1/1.

 

If I log a cache as found it means that I have personally signed the log. For me, that's the only way to go.

 

I'm really curious about this. If the situation were reversed and the "team" across the road found it and told you, would you cross the road, sign the log and log it online, (I would), or would you make the decision that you never would have found it and log a DNF, or nothing at all?

 

I guess my ethics get a bit blurred here as I was not actually part of the team that found it, but I have the opportunity to hold it in my hand and sign the log. What I wouldn't do is simply wave and drive off and then log it online.

[+tozainamboku]

If driving near a cache is the new standard for a find, I could increase my found count by tens of thousands of smilies.

While someone might claim this as a find, I don't believe that is what is being discussed. The standard, for many, seems to be that when caching in a group as a team, responsibilities can be shared and that all the members of the group can log a find if the team finds the cache.

 

While some people may wish to apply personal rules that you have at least gotten out of the car, others might consider the driver role as integral to finding the cache. The issue for the OP is not that you can't log as part of a team but whether or not spliting a team into two squads is still a team. In some situations, a team may get credit for what a portion of the team did, while in other situations you might want to credit only those directly involved. If I met someone who could tell me that they were a member of Seal Team Six, I would say "You're the ones that got Bin Laden", even if that person was not on the squad that was in Abbottabad.

[+briansnat]

I simply don't get the point of logging finds on caches you never even visited. OK, sitting behind the steering wheel while your partners step out a few feet and bag the cache, I sort of get that, but logging finds when you were not even at the cache site? Can someone please explain this one to me?

[Clan Riffster]

I simply don't get the point of logging finds on caches you never even visited. OK, sitting behind the steering wheel while your partners step out a few feet and bag the cache, I sort of get that, but logging finds when you were not even at the cache site? Can someone please explain this one to me?

I don't even get the sitting behind the wheel smiley. To me, geocaching and driving are two separate activities. If I drove BillyBobNosePicker to a small park, and he went out and grabbed the caches whilst I sucked up A/C and jammed to some Zeppelin, should I log those as well, since I drove him there? What about a large park, where I can't keep sight of him? A Wally World parking lot, where I drop him off on one row, and pick him up on the next? Playing taxi is an important task. I'm not trying to minimize it. But driving is not caching, save for the rare one that you can reach just by rolling down your window.

 

I will stipulate that I am not an expert on power trail etiquette. I've only done one real power trail, which was 36 caches strung along a roadway. We both got out, for every single cache. That's what I see as team caching, when each member of the team is actively engaged in locating the cache, signing the log and returning the cache, even if their only participation was to walk the ten feet to the cache with you.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm a proponent of allowing a find to be defined by the seeker and the owner. If they want to allow behind the wheel smileys, I certainly won't dispute it. The same for three cache monte, leap frogging or starting a car at each end. The folks who play that way are welcome to their drive by smileys. My only objection was that the OP seemed to think one of those caching methods was perfectly fine, whilst the other was cheating, even though, in both cases, there would be smileys claimed by people that did not actually participate in the actual hunt. I'm thinking that if you need to justify your actions, just to ncrease your find count, perhaps it's time to rethink your actions?

 

Post script: the collective you, not you personally.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I don't even get the sitting behind the wheel smiley. To me, geocaching and driving are two separate activities......

 

In general I agree, but on a "mega" power trail it becomes a matter of what is practical. On a real high volume power trail the hides are generally obvious and you park right by them. If the driver stops by the cache on the passengers side, the passenger will have found it before the driver can get to it. It will probably be found before the driver can even get out of the car. The driver could open and close their door 1000 times (so making an attempt to get out and find it), but that seems unnecessary to me.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't even get the sitting behind the wheel smiley. To me, geocaching and driving are two separate activities. If I drove BillyBobNosePicker to a small park, and he went out and grabbed the caches whilst I sucked up A/C and jammed to some Zeppelin, should I log those as well, since I drove him there?

Poor Michael Collins.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't even get the sitting behind the wheel smiley. To me, geocaching and driving are two separate activities. If I drove BillyBobNosePicker to a small park, and he went out and grabbed the caches whilst I sucked up A/C and jammed to some Zeppelin, should I log those as well, since I drove him there?

Poor Michael Collins.

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Director of the National Air and Space Museum, Undersecretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Vice President of LTV Aerospace. Maybe we have different definitions of 'Poor'?

[Clan Riffster]

 

I don't even get the sitting behind the wheel smiley. To me, geocaching and driving are two separate activities......

 

In general I agree, but on a "mega" power trail it becomes a matter of what is practical. On a real high volume power trail the hides are generally obvious and you park right by them. If the driver stops by the cache on the passengers side, the passenger will have found it before the driver can get to it. It will probably be found before the driver can even get out of the car. The driver could open and close their door 1000 times (so making an attempt to get out and find it), but that seems unnecessary to me.

The one power trail I did, (mentioned above), differed only in scale. We still drove down the road to each one. We knew after the second cache where each would be, so it's not like any real hunting was required. Sure, I could have stayed in the car, whilst my buddy did all the work, but that would have felt more like chauffeuring, and less like geocaching. I won't gainsay what someone else feels is a find. I can only do that for me. But once you start claiming finds for things just because you drove there, the slope gets a bit slippery.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't even get the sitting behind the wheel smiley. To me, geocaching and driving are two separate activities. If I drove BillyBobNosePicker to a small park, and he went out and grabbed the caches whilst I sucked up A/C and jammed to some Zeppelin, should I log those as well, since I drove him there?

Poor Michael Collins.

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Director of the National Air and Space Museum, Undersecretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Vice President of LTV Aerospace. Maybe we have different definitions of 'Poor'?

Good news - even if he was never at the cache, it looks like he did sign the log. I guess he can log a find. And so can Richard Nixon.

Edited May 12, 2013 by tozainamboku

[AZcachemeister]

...and so the yellow blends with the red until we get orange.

And the orange washes over us all in various shades of almost red to nearly yellow.

But never really yellow, nor quite red either.

[+redsox_mark]

Yes, we all didn't get out of the car, but considering the hide types (film canisters and preforms either attached to sign posts or utility poles in plain sight), it would have been found before anyone else would have gotten out of the car.

 

 

The one power trail I did, (mentioned above), differed only in scale. We still drove down the road to each one. We knew after the second cache where each would be, so it's not like any real hunting was required. Sure, I could have stayed in the car, whilst my buddy did all the work, but that would have felt more like chauffeuring, and less like geocaching. I won't gainsay what someone else feels is a find. I can only do that for me. But once you start claiming finds for things just because you drove there, the slope gets a bit slippery.

 

Clan Riffster,

 

Did you find any? Or had your buddy found each one before you could get out of the car?

 

Power trails do vary. I did a "small" one (133 finds) with a buddy. Most were hanging in pine trees. But often the trees were 50 to 100 yards off the road. And sometimes there were multiple trees, and some trees were large. The finds were not always quick. So both of us searched every one, and often the driver found it.

 

But if I was doing a trail of 1000, and I'm the driver.. where you can see the cache from the car and park inches from it - and my buddy finds the first 100 in a row before I can even get out of the car, I'm going to stop trying to get out (unless he doesn't find it right away). In fact I'll probably reach that conclusion before 100 caches...

 

I'm not worried about a "slippery slope", as I will use my judgement about what feels right to me. If the second I stop the car my friend is already grabbing the cache I will not feel guilty about not getting out of the car.

 

The other point to mention is people do these trails as a team. And because of the large numbers, speed is important. The driver needlessly getting out (when the passenger can find it quicker) will likely slow down the rate.

Edited May 12, 2013 by redsox_mark