Geocaching Ethics

[+Walts Hunting]

...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.

 

I see your order from Dr. Timothy Leary arrived.

[Clan Riffster]

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?

There really wasn't any finding, so to speak. Each cache was at the base of a white PVC pole, placed by the local phone company. Because of the grass, we technically could not see the cache, but we could see the pole from many, many meters away, and knew exactly where each cache was. I got out, not because my efforts were needed. But rather, because that's what I envision team cache hunting to be. Each person on the team approaching each cache, each person looking for each cache, whoever finds it grabs it and signs the log. This is how I do team hunts in the woods, and I saw no reason to change simply because our environment was more urban.

 

As for speed, it's really not my thing. I like to get out, stretch my legs, look around, see what there is to see. Maybe make some snarky comments about the run. I prefer to count my caching experience one cache at a time, so i really don't have much in the way of time constraints. No need to rush. I gotta stop and smell the proverbial roses. Maye there is something unusual at this GZ, worth looking at? I can't know the answer to that unless I look to see what there is to see. During this particular power trail run, the answer was, "not much", which I suspect holds true for most power trails. The hiders seem to not care too much about location, and seemingly are only interested in letting folks crank up their numbers. For those who like such extended acts of tedium, power trails are great. Having tried one, I think I'll pass on the rest. A wise Snoog once opined that if you're not having fun geocaching, you're doing it wrong. Since that little adventure was not fun, for me, I'll stick to what I do enjoy.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

Why stop at driving? I got on an airplane in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia early Friday morning then flew over South Sudan, Sudan, Egypt, then landed in Turkey. Then I got on another plane and flew over Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherland, United Kingdom, Ireland, and a portion of Canada before landing in New York. I was likely near the lat/long coordinates for a lot of caches along the way. I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

 

 

[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'?

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.

The Puritans would argue that, since several signatures came from folks who participated in the hide, and Dick & Mike signed the log before it was hidden, that no one in that group should be claiming a find.

[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.

Why stop at driving? I got on an airplane in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia early Friday morning then flew over South Sudan, Sudan, Egypt, then landed in Turkey. Then I got on another plane and flew over Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherland, United Kingdom, Ireland, and a portion of Canada before landing in New York. I was likely near the lat/long coordinates for a lot of caches along the way. I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

Testify! Proximity is such a vague concept, geologically speaking. How close is close enough? I'm thinking the answer to that will determine if my immediate find count goes up by several thousand, or over a million.

[AZcachemeister]

I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

 

Sorry, but not ALL of those caches...

 

Just the ones that were being found as you flew past/over, since you were emotionally and spiritually a part of those teams at the time.

 

This is the 'slippery slope' that Riffster mentioned...at what point are you too far away for it to count?

50 feet, 100 feet, 528 feet, within sight, radio contact range?

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

 

Sorry, but not ALL of those caches...

 

Just the ones that were being found as you flew past/over, since you were emotionally and spiritually a part of those teams at the time.

 

This is the 'slippery slope' that Riffster mentioned...at what point are you too far away for it to count?

50 feet, 100 feet, 528 feet, within sight, radio contact range?

I'm not sure I'd call it a "slippery slope," but if I did then I suppose defining a "find" really begins at whether you were the person who actually found the cache and put your pen to the log. I don't subscribe to this strict definition of "find," but I feel my personal definition is well within what is generally accepted and doesn't leave me perched on some slippery slope.

 

My own definition of "find" (for physical caches) is being sure I'm within talking distance of GZ and being sure someone in our group signed my name on the log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

 

Sorry, but not ALL of those caches...

 

Just the ones that were being found as you flew past/over, since you were emotionally and spiritually a part of those teams at the time.

 

This is the 'slippery slope' that Riffster mentioned...at what point are you too far away for it to count?

50 feet, 100 feet, 528 feet, within sight, radio contact range?

I'm not sure I'd call it a "slippery slope," but if I did then I suppose defining a "find" really begins at whether you were the person who actually found the cache and put your pen to the log. I don't subscribe to this strict definition of "find," but I feel my personal definition is well within what is generally accepted and doesn't leave me perched on some slippery slope.

 

My own definition of "find" (for physical caches) is being sure I'm within talking distance of GZ and being sure someone in our group signed my name on the log.

 

I don't subscribe to that strict definition of a find either, but also think being "emotionally and spiritually part of the team" is not enough. I think that at the very least, if you're part of a "team" that one should be actively part of the search to actually be engaging in the game we call geocaching. Driving 1000 feet and stopping for 30 seconds, and then doing the same thing over and over isn't, to me, geocaching. That's driving.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

 

Sorry, but not ALL of those caches...

 

Just the ones that were being found as you flew past/over, since you were emotionally and spiritually a part of those teams at the time.

 

This is the 'slippery slope' that Riffster mentioned...at what point are you too far away for it to count?

50 feet, 100 feet, 528 feet, within sight, radio contact range?

I'm not sure I'd call it a "slippery slope," but if I did then I suppose defining a "find" really begins at whether you were the person who actually found the cache and put your pen to the log. I don't subscribe to this strict definition of "find," but I feel my personal definition is well within what is generally accepted and doesn't leave me perched on some slippery slope.

 

My own definition of "find" (for physical caches) is being sure I'm within talking distance of GZ and being sure someone in our group signed my name on the log.

 

I don't subscribe to that strict definition of a find either, but also think being "emotionally and spiritually part of the team" is not enough. I think that at the very least, if you're part of a "team" that one should be actively part of the search to actually be engaging in the game we call geocaching. Driving 1000 feet and stopping for 30 seconds, and then doing the same thing over and over isn't, to me, geocaching. That's driving.

 

This, and most PT discussions, confirm yet again that PTs are a disservice to the game.

[+tozainamboku]

because that's what I envision team cache hunting to be.

I've no problem with different people envisioning team caching in different ways.

 

I tend to agree with the concept that "team" geocaching should be about group of friends spending some time together having fun doing something they enjoy. In fact, to me the idea of splitting the team in two or more groups that look for separate caches doesn't sound like it meets that criteria. It sounds like two teams that perhaps want to compete with on another and get together at the end of the day to compare notes.

 

Similarly, if you're going to find caches in the woods, you could argue that a driver who stays with the care isn't really meeting the criteria of being with the group. But on a power trail most of the time the team is in the car driving from cache to cache. And given that most teams have a goal of finding as many caches as possible in a limited time, the teams are likely to work out some way of splitting up responsibilities to find caches efficiently. This sort of goal may be foreign to someone who prefers finding just a few caches in the woods while hiking and stopping to enjoy what nature has to offer. However, each person has their own reasons for geocaching.

 

Why stop at driving? I got on an airplane in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia early Friday morning then flew over South Sudan, Sudan, Egypt, then landed in Turkey. Then I got on another plane and flew over Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherland, United Kingdom, Ireland, and a portion of Canada before landing in New York. I was likely near the lat/long coordinates for a lot of caches along the way. I'm going to be pretty busy logging all those caches.

I refer you to AZcachemeister's color spectrum or to the famous Yoda/Darth Vader diagram (perhaps someone can post a link). While each of us has some line where we draw the distinction between a legitimate use of the online find and one that is not legitimate (or where red ends and orange begins), this is different for each of us.

 

I don't understand where the proverbial slippery slope is, that will soon have use all posting finds on geocaches that we flew over in a airplane.

 

My guess is that least fun part of doing a power trail is logging all the caches online. While, the Geocaching Live API makes this somewhat easier, I would think that it doesn't make it any more enjoyable. People will tend to log caches where they truly believe that they were part of the team that "found" the cache. There may be a few misguided individuals who believe that they gain some advantage by having a bigger find count, and so are willing to spend time logging caches they neither found nor were part of a team that found, but my guess is that they are rare and that they loose interest in this sort of thing quickly.

 

Nobody has suggested that anyone who has driven the ET highway can log the caches there. Instead people have asked, and others have opined, as to whether its OK to log caches online where you were the driver on a power trail run or where a team split into groups to tackle the power trail that way. I believe that the individual, the other members of the team, and the cache owner, are the only ones who can answer these questions.

[+CanadianRockies]

Nobody has suggested that anyone who has driven the ET highway can log the caches there. Instead people have asked, and others have opined, as to whether its OK to log caches online where you were the driver on a power trail run or where a team split into groups to tackle the power trail that way. I believe that the individual, the other members of the team, and the cache owner, are the only ones who can answer these questions.

While Groundspeak also could answer those particular questions, it's unlikely they'll weigh in. They have indicated, however, that they don't consider certain types of "finds" to be legitimate, including those logged by bots, "pocket cache" finds, "armchair" finds, "virtual" traditional finds, and non-webcam webcam finds. At least that helps prevent certain people from sliding too far down the slope.

[+Don_J]

Nobody has suggested that anyone who has driven the ET highway can log the caches there. Instead people have asked, and others have opined, as to whether its OK to log caches online where you were the driver on a power trail run or where a team split into groups to tackle the power trail that way. I believe that the individual, the other members of the team, and the cache owner, are the only ones who can answer these questions.

While Groundspeak also could answer those particular questions, it's unlikely they'll weigh in. They have indicated, however, that they don't consider certain types of "finds" to be legitimate, including those logged by bots, "pocket cache" finds, "armchair" finds, "virtual" traditional finds, and non-webcam webcam finds. At least that helps prevent certain people from sliding too far down the slope.

 

Going back to the original question. IMO, if I go to a 100 cache trail and start at cache 100 and find it through cache 51, while my friend finds cache 1 to 50, and then I go home and log them all as found online, I have just logged 50 legitimate finds and 50 armchair finds.

[+redsox_mark]

As for speed, it's really not my thing. I like to get out, stretch my legs, look around, see what there is to see. Maybe make some snarky comments about the run. I prefer to count my caching experience one cache at a time, so i really don't have much in the way of time constraints. No need to rush. I gotta stop and smell the proverbial roses.

 

I'm like that too.

 

My point is that for many teams, on a power trail speed is important. If you are going to find 1000 or more caches and not take a week doing it (and not go crazy doing it) you need to be fast.

The driver getting out of the car each time will slow the team down. Your team members will likely not be happy and tell you to stay in the car.

 

Like it or not, with large PTs it is often the speed itself which is the challenge. The caches themselves aren't challenging... but finding 1000 in 24 hours (or whatever) is.

 

In this (one car) scenario - the driver can see each cache being found and signed by a team member. He/She could get out and look if it would help; the only reason they don't is it helps the team's goal more if they stay in their seat.

 

I don't expect everyone (or anyone) to agree; but to me this seems reasonable. And seems quite different than driving past caches at 70 mph without stopping, or flying past them on an aircraft.

 

Back to the OP. As I said earlier, I can see how a team might consider 2 cars as a way of speeding up even more. But I do think that crosses a line I wouldn't personally cross. I see a difference between being present at the find but staying in the car (for sake of speed), and not personally visiting the cache at all.

[+Marcas_Found]

I'll add my 2 cents;

 

To me, geocaching is all about the experiences I've enjoyed over the years. That could be a a P.T., an FTF, a 5/5 cache, etc, etc, it doesn't matter to me. The experience is what is most important. To me, those who share that exact experience at that exact moment should be able to log a smiley.

 

Tipsie and I have done the E.T. We swapped driving and jumping duties every 50 caches BUT we stopped AND found every single cache in the series (we replaced only 1 that we physically saw get muggled). I guess the numbers are a bonus but to us, it was about the experience. Could we do it? Did we have the logistics nailed down? Enjoying the amazing views (we took tons of amazing photos along the way). Having a great time together. And lastly and most important, just having fun!

 

I've also been on day long hikes and 4x4 excursions going after just 1 cache. 1 comes to mind that was 4 miles back in the swamps. It took a group of 40ish cachers 2 hours to get there and once there, only 1 guy was "volunteered" to climb 50 feet up into a tree to retrieve the cache.

 

So, the same thought process plays out: should the dude who climbed the tree or the person who jumped from the car on a P.T. be the only person to sign the log? If I was there to experience the thrill of the hunt for that specific cache then I have no issue with logging a smiley.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Marcas_Found

[+redsox_mark]

Well said, Marcas_Found. It is about the experience, and use your judgement as to what is appropriate.

 

There has been debate about the ethics on tree climbing caches too.

[Clan Riffster]

My last experience with a tree climbing cache was not quite as physical. It required a 2 mile kayak paddle, followed by a hike of maybe a quarter mile. I arrived as part of a group, and tried climbing, but could not make the first branch. Several others climbed up, nabbed the cache and sent it down for the rest of us to sign. While I did put pen to paper, applying my moniker to the log, I opted against claiming it as a find, even though the CO gave his explicit permission to do so. Not because of any rules or guidelines. But rather, because it just didn't feel like a find, to me. Climbing the tree was an integral part of the find, and I failed in that aspect.

 

Driving along a road, stopping every 529' is the same. Sure, the CO allows these finds.

But, to me, it would feel more like repetitive driving, and less like geocaching.

No hunt = No find. Different strokes / different folks.

[+Roman!]

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

 

The driver on a power trail is the most important person and the difference between a good and bad driver can amount to many hours.

 

We are in the middle of or trip to Idaho and have done several power trails, the driver is actually the first person searching for the cache and determining where to park, preferably as close as possible. During my driving shifts I spot 1/10 caches before anyone gets out of the car and if I don't see it I use the GPS and judgement to park at the best spot.

 

The driver is very much part of the hunt.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Roman!

[Clan Riffster]

The driver is very much part of the hunt.

If they actually hunt.

Otherwise, they are just driving.

Not geocaching.

[+Annawashere]

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.

 

The advice given to me by a local cacher was to bring film canisters (or something similar) and just replace missing ones. They're meant to be easy. If you don't see them, then it's missing, and why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

[+Annawashere]

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.

 

Kind of on subject: What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

[+cache_test_dummies]

why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

Why not NOT replace it and just log a DNF since you didn't find it? That's how I see it.

[Clan Riffster]

why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

Why not NOT replace it and just log a DNF since you didn't find it? That's how I see it.

Yeah, pretty much. You should only replace a cache with the explicit permission of the owner. None of this 'implied consent because it's a power trail' silliness. That just makes for lazy cache owners. Even then, it's not a find, unless you count 'finding it' in your backpack.

[+cerberus1]

Kind of on subject: What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

Yes.

[+wmpastor]

Kind of on subject: What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

Yes.

Sore hands? Sign the log with a self-inking rubber stamp like some of the "pro" cachers around here!

[+cerberus1]

The advice given to me by a local cacher was to bring film canisters (or something similar) and just replace missing ones. They're meant to be easy. If you don't see them, then it's missing, and why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

Some advice.

Who'd be arrogant enough to assume that just because they didn't find it, it has to be missing ?

- Oh I know, a local cacher.

 

Rather than log a DNF, I'll just replace the pill bottle, LNL, PB jar (whatever it was, I didn't find it, so not sure) with this film can.

- I've got a bag full for all the others I can't find too.

[+tozainamboku]

The advice given to me by a local cacher was to bring film canisters (or something similar) and just replace missing ones. They're meant to be easy. If you don't see them, then it's missing, and why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

 

Kind of on subject: What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

 

In two consecutive posts someone suggests leaving replacements for "missing" caches and counting these as finds; and that you might want to skip signing some logs. They have to be one of the following:

1. Naive
   
2. A troll
   
3. A witch
   

 

I say "Burn the witch".

[+niraD]

What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

I've logged caches when I did not personally sign my name. Someone else wrote it on the log for me.

 

I've logged caches when my name was not on the log. Either I or someone else wrote an informal team name on behalf of the entire group (e.g., "GBA Evil Cache Run" or "GBA Kayakers").

 

I've logged caches that I never actually touched. In some cases, I was the first person to spot the cache, but (huckle buckle beanstalk) the last person to spot the cache actually retrieved it, signed the log for everyone in the group, and replaced the cache.

 

But in some way or another, every cache I've logged has been signed by me or for me.

[+Sagefox]

...at what point are you too far away for it to count? 50 feet, 100 feet, 528 feet...

 

This is a good point and I agree that these are the distances where slippery comes into question. 50 feet is beginning to push my comfort level but it does not bother me if others do it. Greater than 100 feet seems questionable to me.

 

My own definition... is being sure I'm within talking distance of GZ and being sure someone in our group signed my name on the log.

 

This seems reasonable to me though I typically want to see the cache from a short distance away. (Some exclusions would apply such as tree climb caches, etc., where I did not get to the cache or did not have the container in hand.)

 

It is common practice in the "real world" when folks join up for a day of caching together that not everyone needs to touch the container as long as they are part of the search and someone signs for them or with a temporary group name. No group I have ever cached with in 12 years has done it any differently.

 

Roadside power trail caches are simply a different animal and to expect people to apply common caching practices to them is really just a wasted effort. They are intended for teams with positions for driver, navigator, jumper, snack-mom (male or female can fill this position), etc. Everyone is participating in some way and, not having done this myself, I suspect they enjoy the effort and camaraderie.

 

My line in the sand: Splitting the team up and working from both ends simultaneously then logging all caches as found on an individual account when you've only been to half of them... ...Those would be hollow numbers to me. Our cache find total is a measure of our actual caching experience.

[+Don_J]

why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

Why not NOT replace it and just log a DNF since you didn't find it? That's how I see it.

Yeah, pretty much. You should only replace a cache with the explicit permission of the owner. None of this 'implied consent because it's a power trail' silliness. That just makes for lazy cache owners. Even then, it's not a find, unless you count 'finding it' in your backpack.

 

What if instead of your backpack, you found a whole bunch of spare caches in the ammo that the PT owner left at the beginning of the trail, or in a five gallon bucket behind the counter at The Little Ale'inn?

 

Face it, when people get on these big power trails, they are playing a different game than most of us. What most of us simply wouldn't do under normal circumstances is considered SOP.

[+Don_J]

The advice given to me by a local cacher was to bring film canisters (or something similar) and just replace missing ones. They're meant to be easy. If you don't see them, then it's missing, and why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

Some advice.

Who'd be arrogant enough to assume that just because they didn't find it, it has to be missing ?

- Oh I know, a local cacher.

 

Rather than log a DNF, I'll just replace the pill bottle, LNL, PB jar (whatever it was, I didn't find it, so not sure) with this film can.

- I've got a bag full for all the others I can't find too.

 

We're talking about a power trail full of film cans hidden in identical spots, not your cache out in the woods. In almost every case, the owner has made it clear that if you can't find any of the totally simple D1 caches, go ahead and replace it. As long as cachers don't bring these bad habits back with them to the real caching world.

 

Annawashere, when caching in the real world, the idea of replacing caches just because you can't find them is generally not accepted. In many cases, the cache is there all along and now there are two which confuses future finders, plus it is the cache owners ultimate responsibility to maintain their caches, not rely on others to do so.

 

Cachers doing large power trails have kind of come up with their own set of rules, many of which conflict with what is typically accepted when looking for regular caches in the city or the countryside. This is why you will always see a bit of hostility amongst people discussing them on these forums.

[Clan Riffster]

If you don't see them, then it's missing, and why not just replace it and count the find?

 

When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all?

 

In two consecutive posts someone suggests leaving replacements for "missing" caches and counting these as finds; and that you might want to skip signing some logs. They have to be one of the following:

1. Naive
   
2. A troll
   
3. A witch
   

 

I say "Burn the witch".

Oops! I forgot the Toz approach. It consists of you doing anything you like, and calling such activity geocaching, then ridiculing anyone who suggests that there may be a 'proper' way to play this game.

 

why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

Why not NOT replace it and just log a DNF since you didn't find it? That's how I see it.

Yeah, pretty much. You should only replace a cache with the explicit permission of the owner. None of this 'implied consent because it's a power trail' silliness. That just makes for lazy cache owners. Even then, it's not a find, unless you count 'finding it' in your backpack.

 

What if instead of your backpack, you found a whole bunch of spare caches in the ammo that the PT owner left at the beginning of the trail, or in a five gallon bucket behind the counter at The Little Ale'inn?

Count the total number of containers present, ammo can + film cans.

Log that many finds on that particular cache.

Go home. Insist that anyone who doesn't like my practice is a Puritan.

[Mr.Yuck]

The advice given to me by a local cacher was to bring film canisters (or something similar) and just replace missing ones. They're meant to be easy. If you don't see them, then it's missing, and why not just replace it and count the find? That's how I see it.

 

Kind of on subject: What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

 

In two consecutive posts someone suggests leaving replacements for "missing" caches and counting these as finds; and that you might want to skip signing some logs. They have to be one of the following:

1. Naive
   
2. A troll
   
3. A witch
   

 

I say "Burn the witch".

 

Judging from her profile, Anna is a teen cacher, so we'll spare her the burning. Even though all of us, save Toz and the long absent sbell111, are Puritans.

 

The first quoted statement from Anna, regarding replacing them and counting the find, is standard fare for many roadside micro power trails. And often suggested right on the cache page. I don't know how they get away with suggesting that right on the cache page, but that's besides the point. I cannot argue with this practice, under the "whatever floats their boat" clause.

 

The second quoted statement, yes, you, or someone in your party should open the containers, and sign or stamp. Like niraD, I have been in many group caching situations where one person signs the logs for everyone. Although I can't recall any instances where I've ever been part of a team name, and the "one person" might scribble down 2-6 names. Oooh, I better watch myself there, I might lose my highly coveted Puritan status on that one.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

 

Kind of on subject: What is everyone's opinion on signing logs? When there are 100+ caches to find, do you have to sign them all? Assuming you lay your hands on the cache, is signing necessary?

 

I don't understand why someone would do a powertrail, but have someone else sign a team name on half or more of the hides, so they wouldn't have to be bothered to go anywhere near the other part of the trail, or be bothered to sign any of the logs in the first place? Seriously, if it is such a hassle, why do it at all? You can back date the logs a few months before and nobody will notice, or care. If the numbers are so important to maintain an image that you feel compelled to perform a task you dislike, really why? Just log them from your couch. The reason why nobody will notice, or care, should be a big clue on how important those numbers really are, and should have you seriously question wasting the time in the first place. Seeing large numbers sometimes is like noticing a massive lifted truck parked somewhere and knowing the driver is barely over 5 feet tall and 100 pounds.