Time to get with the times and learn from power trails.

[Clan Riffster]

If cache containers are considered litter then maybe we should ban caching altogether then, doesn't matter if its one or five at GZ, still litter.

One cache, placed by the owner, for the purpose of others to find and log, and recovered by the owner once it is archived, is not litter. A handful of film cans plopped down by those who are too lazy to actually hunt for a cache, is litter.

 

Anyways, you guys have degenerated this thread into another attack on power trails, the subject of this thread is will mandatory throw downs reduce damage to the environment?

As you are no doubt aware, the conversations are intimately related, as power lazy trails are where throw down caches are most prominent, by a huge margin. When a throw down occurs at a cache which is not part of a power lazy trail, it is most oft spewed out by someone who embraces the power lazy trail mentality.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

 

[4wheelin_fool]

If cache containers are considered litter then maybe we should ban caching altogether then, doesn't matter if its one or five at GZ, still litter.

One cache, placed by the owner, for the purpose of others to find and log, and recovered by the owner once it is archived, is not litter. A handful of film cans plopped down by those who are too lazy to actually hunt for a cache, is litter.

 

He very well knows that.

 

 

Anyways, you guys have degenerated this thread into another attack on power trails, the subject of this thread is will mandatory throw downs reduce damage to the environment?

As you are no doubt aware, the conversations are intimately related, as power lazy trails are where throw down caches are most prominent, by a huge margin. When a throw down occurs at a cache which is not part of a power lazy trail, it is most oft spewed out by someone who embraces the power lazy trail mentality.

 

Well heckfire, how on earth did this thread denigrate into another attack on power trails? Could it possibly be the title? Perhaps it could have been worded differently. I think "Littering to save the environment" would have been more succinct. Or "Littering to save Roman! from searching for over 5 minutes" is more accurate.

[+Roman!]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

My kids don't ave an account and most likely will never log a single cache yet they had an awesome time. Geocaching is supposed to get you outdoors and in my case and based on the logs I saw, many other cases both Route 66 and the trails and art in Idaho accomplish that.

 

What makes openin a Tupperware container on the top of a 5,000' mountain so special? I've done that to and it the company (or solitude if you prefer), journey and the view same reason I enjoyed both my trips,.

 

I studied logs and pictures and the areas for both my trips and took into account who I was going with and what our itinerary would look like before committing to either trip. Finding 1000/2000 caches was part of the reason for going as was the company as was the views as we're other factors. If you took away any of the factors I considered important to me then I never would have went.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Roman!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I've started responses several times to this thread but in the end it difficult to argue over the proper way to eat ice cream.

 

Although Signal is shown licking a cone, I don't doubt that someone would complain that licking ice cream from a cone has little to do with real ice cream eating, or perhaps that we should get with times and eat ice cream with a spoon?

 

But you must admit puzzles have a lot less to do with caching than power trails.

 

If you consider power trails to be real geocaching, then yes, puzzles have absolutely nothing to do with geocaching.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

My kids don't ave an account and most likely will never log a single cache yet they had an awesome time. Geocaching is supposed to get you outdoors and in my case and based on the logs I saw, many other cases both Route 66 and the trails and art in Idaho accomplish that.

 

So would any other place in the world that didn't have 1000s of geocaches to be found. That's my point. If your goal is to spend quality time with family or friend and to get you outdoors it shouldn't *matter* if you only find 300 caches instead of 3000. If you won't go some place that didn't have 1000's of caches then I'd suggest that isn't really about getting outdoors and spending quality time with family or friends, but more about finding lots of caches.

 

 

 

[+Roman!]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

My kids don't ave an account and most likely will never log a single cache yet they had an awesome time. Geocaching is supposed to get you outdoors and in my case and based on the logs I saw, many other cases both Route 66 and the trails and art in Idaho accomplish that.

 

So would any other place in the world that didn't have 1000s of geocaches to be found. That's my point. If your goal is to spend quality time with family or friend and to get you outdoors it shouldn't *matter* if you only find 300 caches instead of 3000. If you won't go some place that didn't have 1000's of caches then I'd suggest that isn't really about getting outdoors and spending quality time with family or friends, but more about finding lots of caches.

 

It's about all of it wrapped together. I spend quality time with my family all the time, thie Route 66 trip was awesome for so many reasons.

 

In a few days I'm driving to alaska with my 2 daughters, I think there are 2 caches where we are going but I'm pretty sure it's going to be an awesome trip too.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

Some power-trailers talk about the beauty of the area they are stopping/going every 30 seconds in. I wonder how much more of the beauty they would enjoy if they did less caches, and spent more time exploring the area more than 25' from the edge of a road?

 

I've gone on multiple geocaching road trips (I think I am up to 6 at this point) alone and with friends, and have enjoyed them immensely. We limit the number of caches we do, and make sure we have time to take in the scenery and local color/flavor. I know we woudl not have enjoyed them as much if we hit a cache every couple of minutes.

 

I think the fun these folks talk of may be due more to the camaraderie, and less due to the fact that they grabbed hundreds and hundreds of caches.

[+Mudfrog]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

My kids don't ave an account and most likely will never log a single cache yet they had an awesome time. Geocaching is supposed to get you outdoors and in my case and based on the logs I saw, many other cases both Route 66 and the trails and art in Idaho accomplish that.

 

What makes openin a Tupperware container on the top of a 5,000' mountain so special? I've done that to and it the company (or solitude if you prefer), journey and the view same reason I enjoyed both my trips,.

 

I studied logs and pictures and the areas for both my trips and took into account who I was going with and what our itinerary would look like before committing to either trip. Finding 1000/2000 caches was part of the reason for going as was the company as was the views as we're other factors. If you took away any of the factors I considered important to me then I never would have went.

 

Don't know you are your kids but if they did have as good a time as you say, then they're definitely not typical.

 

I don't know any kids who would enjoy being stuck in a car for hours, repeatedly stopping to grab the same o same o placed a little over 500 feet apart from each other. This especially true since they don't care anything about smiley count. I would imagine there were a few "are we there yet", "when can we go home" type remarks that eminated from the backseat on that trip.

[+Roman!]

You know, I used to work with a guy just like the OP, except he was into CB radio, not Geocaching.

 

He would get home from work, grab a couple beers, and settle down in front of his CB, and proceed to stir the pot. He got great pleasure out of getting other CBers riled up, and arguing.

 

At coffee break he would brag about how easy it was to get others riled up, and just which buttons to push.

 

Kind of pathetic really.

 

Please don't pretend you know anything about me.

 

 

yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

I have been wondering how some people get 3459 finds in a year or two of caching. Some with 9875 finds as well in 4 or 5 years. Either you are retired and caching is all you do or a lot are just "I drove/walked/flew by it so I can log it".

 

Or you go on an awesome trip with your kids, have your son experience his first time driving on route 66 2 days before his 16th birthday and all in all have an awesome time as do your kids and then you spend a fun week with friends in Idaho.

 

How much less awesome would it have been if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300? It seems to me that you'd be spending a lot more time actually interacting with your family if you found fewer caches.

 

Actually I found under 1000 caches that trip and I left it up to my kids how to long to cache each day, as we never would have went there if not for the Route 66 caches I really hate to break it to you but it is the reason we had an awesome time.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean no one should.

 

Whether or not I like power trail is completely irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting that you nor anyone else should or should not do power trails.

 

The 3000 number was for both the route 66 trail and the caches you found in Idaho. You didn't really answer my question. I understand that you would not have gone to route 66 if there wasn't a power trail located there and I suspect that you wouldn't have gone to Idaho if there wasn't another 2000 caches to be found in the geo-art caches, but that's not what I asked. What I'm wondering is if you could have had an awesome time with your kids if, instead of finding 3000 caches, you spent the same amount of time and only found 300?

 

You keep on trying to suggestion that the awesomeness of a trip to route 66 or some place in Idaho is due to the time you're spending with your kids or spending a week with friends and I'm trying to find out if it's really about spending time with family or friends or it's more about adding 3000 finds to your total find count.

 

My kids don't ave an account and most likely will never log a single cache yet they had an awesome time. Geocaching is supposed to get you outdoors and in my case and based on the logs I saw, many other cases both Route 66 and the trails and art in Idaho accomplish that.

 

What makes openin a Tupperware container on the top of a 5,000' mountain so special? I've done that to and it the company (or solitude if you prefer), journey and the view same reason I enjoyed both my trips,.

 

I studied logs and pictures and the areas for both my trips and took into account who I was going with and what our itinerary would look like before committing to either trip. Finding 1000/2000 caches was part of the reason for going as was the company as was the views as we're other factors. If you took away any of the factors I considered important to me then I never would have went.

 

Don't know you are your kids but if they did have as good a time as you say, then they're definitely not typical.

 

I don't know any kids who would enjoy being stuck in a car for hours, repeatedly stopping to grab the same o same o placed a little over 500 feet apart from each other. This especially true since they don't care anything about smiley count. I would imagine there were a few "are we there yet", "when can we go home" type remarks that eminated from the backseat on that trip.

 

You'd bet wrong because I left it in their hands how long we'd cache each day and there wasn't a single "are we there yet" or "when can we go home"?

[+nthacker66]

There are 2 kinds of people on these forums 1) The ones that need to be heard and 2) The ones that fall for threads like this....

[+unabowler]

Awwww. I haven't been geocaching for a month or so, so I haven't been on the forums and I miss a Roman thread. I'll take time to read it all later, but did he say how the mandatory throwdown is going to be enforced? Is that another thing he's got the reviewers signed up for?

[team tisri]

Awwww. I haven't been geocaching for a month or so, so I haven't been on the forums and I miss a Roman thread. I'll take time to read it all later, but did he say how the mandatory throwdown is going to be enforced? Is that another thing he's got the reviewers signed up for?

 

It's easy enough, you put a sensor in each cache that detects the presence of a GPS and starts a timer. When it gets to five minutes it emits a loud noise to remind the cacher who failed to find it that it's time to throw down a replacement and move on.

 

Add in my earlier suggestion that the throwdown cache must be no smaller than an ammo can and sooner or later it will be nigh on impossible to fail to find the cache.

 

If nothing else it would mean that all those pesky nanos would soon be surrounded by ammo cans.

[+Great Scott!]

Are the CO of these throwdown-allowed power trails holding regular CITO events to recover all these disappearing caches?

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Are the CO of these throwdown-allowed power trails holding regular CITO events to recover all these disappearing caches?

 

Re trails, it actually speeds things up if you have 3 or 4 at each location. However if one pile of rocks has no cache you'll get a DNF even though there are 2 more within 10 feet ( or someone will get you back up to three )

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've started responses several times to this thread but in the end it difficult to argue over the proper way to eat ice cream.

 

Although Signal is shown licking a cone, I don't doubt that someone would complain that licking ice cream from a cone has little to do with real ice cream eating, or perhaps that we should get with times and eat ice cream with a spoon?

 

But you must admit puzzles have a lot less to do with caching than power trails.

 

If you consider power trails to be real geocaching, then yes, puzzles have absolutely nothing to do with geocaching.

 

Of all the bad ideas puzzles are the worst. I would rather re-visit the same section of the power trails I've already done 100 times than sit around doing computer searches and other " research " for solving puzzles ......just my opinion. All the negative talk is about micro's, nano's, and PT's when its the puzzles scaring the landscape.....I know some must love them because they are everywhere. I guess I can now feel the pain of those who have complained about certain cache types.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Are the CO of these throwdown-allowed power trails holding regular CITO events to recover all these disappearing caches?

 

Yes. Cito Event #1 will be held from 8:00-9:00AM and cover caches 1 through 50. Then at 9:00AM-10:00AM Cito Event #2 will start and cover caches 51-100....and so one until all 2000 caches are covered.

 

 

[+rosebud55112]

I've started responses several times to this thread but in the end it difficult to argue over the proper way to eat ice cream.

 

Although Signal is shown licking a cone, I don't doubt that someone would complain that licking ice cream from a cone has little to do with real ice cream eating, or perhaps that we should get with times and eat ice cream with a spoon?

 

But you must admit puzzles have a lot less to do with caching than power trails.

 

If you consider power trails to be real geocaching, then yes, puzzles have absolutely nothing to do with geocaching.

 

Of all the bad ideas puzzles are the worst. I would rather re-visit the same section of the power trails I've already done 100 times than sit around doing computer searches and other " research " for solving puzzles ......just my opinion. All the negative talk is about micro's, nano's, and PT's when its the puzzles scaring the landscape.....I know some must love them because they are everywhere. I guess I can now feel the pain of those who have complained about certain cache types.

 

You may need to change your signature line, Bamboozle

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Anyways, you guys have degenerated this thread into another attack on power trails, the subject of this thread is will mandatory throw downs reduce damage to the environment?

 

I was thinking an attack on power trails was an improvement to the discussion on throw-downs. Not only should they not be mandatory, but they should not be allowed. A finder is not an authority on whether a cache is really missing or how it was supposed to be hidden or what it was supposed to be like. A finder is not responsible for maintenance, because if hiders get it into their heads that they have no responsibility to the thing after initial placement, then we're really going to trash the game. A finder is not really a finder if they placed the cache that they "found." If you think the accepted behavior for power trails has a right to exist and has no bearing on real geocaching, then think again; any ground lost here will bleed over to the rest of the game and ruin things for people who want to place/hide a unique container with worthwhile swag in an interesting spot. This is not a sport. It's a hobby. Your find count is not a score. A thousand easy power trail finds are nothing next to one really challenging mountaintop hide. One smiley does not equal another.

[+paleolith]

Five minutes? A person can do a lot of damage in five minutes. The limit should be five seconds. Better yet, if you can't see the cache or the SPOR from the car, just throw the new one from the window. Have a lot of them prepared. If you see a whole pile of film cans, just log the find.

 

Ooh, still better: don't even bother stamping the log with your group stamp. Just hit the SPOR with a paint gun from the car window. Mix a little of your blood with the paint so that your find can be verified by DNA analysis.

 

Edward

[team tisri]

Five minutes? A person can do a lot of damage in five minutes. The limit should be five seconds. Better yet, if you can't see the cache or the SPOR from the car, just throw the new one from the window. Have a lot of them prepared. If you see a whole pile of film cans, just log the find.

 

Ooh, still better: don't even bother stamping the log with your group stamp. Just hit the SPOR with a paint gun from the car window. Mix a little of your blood with the paint so that your find can be verified by DNA analysis.

 

Edward

 

Not sure that mixing blood with paint is such a good idea. Even if you were to just mix 1ml of blood per paint shot, by the time you'd done the 2000th cache along a power trail you'd be feeling pretty faint.

[team tisri]

Actually to save the environment I propose a new way of logging power trails.

 

It's pretty simple, you post a GPX file to show you were in the general area and on that basis you claim finds on all the caches in the trail. Not only does it save environmental damage at each individual GZ it also saves the environmental impact of driving from one end of the trail to the other and back again.

[4wheelin_fool]

Five minutes? A person can do a lot of damage in five minutes. The limit should be five seconds. Better yet, if you can't see the cache or the SPOR from the car, just throw the new one from the window. Have a lot of them prepared. If you see a whole pile of film cans, just log the find.

 

Ooh, still better: don't even bother stamping the log with your group stamp. Just hit the SPOR with a paint gun from the car window. Mix a little of your blood with the paint so that your find can be verified by DNA analysis.

 

Edward

 

Not sure that mixing blood with paint is such a good idea. Even if you were to just mix 1ml of blood per paint shot, by the time you'd done the 2000th cache along a power trail you'd be feeling pretty faint.

 

One ml is excessive. It can be done with much less.

[Clan Riffster]

Actually to save the environment I propose a new way of logging power trails.

 

It's pretty simple, you post a GPX file to show you were in the general area and on that basis you claim finds on all the caches in the trail. Not only does it save environmental damage at each individual GZ it also saves the environmental impact of driving from one end of the trail to the other and back again.

But creating a .gpx file requires battery power, either in the form of disposables, which are horribly bad for the environment, or rechargeable, which for most of the country still require either a coal burning or nuclear power plant. Also, there's the whole fossil fuel and carbon footprint debate to look at, regarding driving the 1000 to 2000 miles necessary to create the .gpx file. Even if you use an electric car, you still face the problems inherent in rechargeable batteries.

 

A better solution, environmentally, would be to simply log onto Google Earth, with your solar powered tablet, and view the route in question. Then you could say you've 'virtually' visited them all, and log finds on the whole stretch.

 

It's for the chilruns!

[4wheelin_fool]

Actually to save the environment I propose a new way of logging power trails.

 

It's pretty simple, you post a GPX file to show you were in the general area and on that basis you claim finds on all the caches in the trail. Not only does it save environmental damage at each individual GZ it also saves the environmental impact of driving from one end of the trail to the other and back again.

 

Since the containers are moved around and replaced on a regular basis, and nobody verifies the logs, even if that was possible, I'm sure that is done on a regular basis anyhow. Why bother splitting up a team to have them tackle the trail from different parts, move containers to save time, or toss throwdowns if nobody checks? The entire activity is based on an extreme fantasy that someone cares if they were actually there, and people care about their numbers. Since you are "cheating" anyway, what difference does it make at what level you do it at? If someone needs the mega finds to feel important, they may have other self esteem issues which are more serious than simply being a "cheater". Just log them.

 

I'm 100% certain that a sock could be created that could accumulate some 10,000 fake finds without anyone questioning it. Log caches all over the planet on he same day and someone will notice. Do it in a normal way and hit a few powertrails with the logs backdated a few months and nobody will find out or care.

[+tozainamboku]

Anyways, you guys have degenerated this thread into another attack on power trails, the subject of this thread is will mandatory throw downs reduce damage to the environment?

 

I was thinking an attack on power trails was an improvement to the discussion on throw-downs. Not only should they not be mandatory, but they should not be allowed. A finder is not an authority on whether a cache is really missing or how it was supposed to be hidden or what it was supposed to be like. A finder is not responsible for maintenance, because if hiders get it into their heads that they have no responsibility to the thing after initial placement, then we're really going to trash the game. A finder is not really a finder if they placed the cache that they "found." If you think the accepted behavior for power trails has a right to exist and has no bearing on real geocaching, then think again; any ground lost here will bleed over to the rest of the game and ruin things for people who want to place/hide a unique container with worthwhile swag in an interesting spot. This is not a sport. It's a hobby. Your find count is not a score. A thousand easy power trail finds are nothing next to one really challenging mountaintop hide. One smiley does not equal another.

I generally have the same opinion on throwdowns (link to cache), but I don't think this is worth getting one's knickers in a twist over - precisely for the part I bolded above. Those who leave throw downs are not so much motivated by getting a smiley as much are they are in trying to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

The main reason for geocaching is to have fun. Most people will tell you they have more fun when they find the cache and get the smiley than if they don't find it and end up logging a DNF. For those whose primary view is that geocaching is about having fun, a throwdown replacement is a good thing. Not only do they have more fun than they would just logging yet anohter DNF on a cache that is most likely missing (because there are already multiple DNF or because this should have been and easy D1 hide), but the following geocacher will have fun because there is now a cache to find. And, supposedly the cache owner will have more because they don't have to spend as much time doing maintenance on their caches.

 

It is very unlikely that you could convince those who leave throwdowns that the negative effects are worse than the positive in every case. In particualar, on power trails where the caches are all supposed to be easy and people don't expect to have search for 1 minute, let alone five; the throwdown is almost natural.

[+Mudfrog]

Anyways, you guys have degenerated this thread into another attack on power trails, the subject of this thread is will mandatory throw downs reduce damage to the environment?

 

I was thinking an attack on power trails was an improvement to the discussion on throw-downs. Not only should they not be mandatory, but they should not be allowed. A finder is not an authority on whether a cache is really missing or how it was supposed to be hidden or what it was supposed to be like. A finder is not responsible for maintenance, because if hiders get it into their heads that they have no responsibility to the thing after initial placement, then we're really going to trash the game. A finder is not really a finder if they placed the cache that they "found." If you think the accepted behavior for power trails has a right to exist and has no bearing on real geocaching, then think again; any ground lost here will bleed over to the rest of the game and ruin things for people who want to place/hide a unique container with worthwhile swag in an interesting spot. This is not a sport. It's a hobby. Your find count is not a score. A thousand easy power trail finds are nothing next to one really challenging mountaintop hide. One smiley does not equal another.

I generally have the same opinion on throwdowns (link to cache), but I don't think this is worth getting one's knickers in a twist over - precisely for the part I bolded above. Those who leave throw downs are not so much motivated by getting a smiley as much are they are in trying to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

The main reason for geocaching is to have fun. Most people will tell you they have more fun when they find the cache and get the smiley than if they don't find it and end up logging a DNF. For those whose primary view is that geocaching is about having fun, a throwdown replacement is a good thing. Not only do they have more fun than they would just logging yet anohter DNF on a cache that is most likely missing (because there are already multiple DNF or because this should have been and easy D1 hide), but the following geocacher will have fun because there is now a cache to find. And, supposedly the cache owner will have more because they don't have to spend as much time doing maintenance on their caches.

 

It is very unlikely that you could convince those who leave throwdowns that the negative effects are worse than the positive in every case. In particualar, on power trails where the caches are all supposed to be easy and people don't expect to have search for 1 minute, let alone five; the throwdown is almost natural.

 

Got a chuckle when i read the bolded part above. I don't believe that for one second. The primary reason throwdowns are popular is that the people somehow believe that leaving them entitles them to log "found" on the cache. Helping an owner may be one reason but getting every smiley is the main objective on a power trail.

 

Power trails are not something i'm interested in but at the same time, it really doesn't bother me that they exist. It's the ideas that come along with them (crappy containers, owners shrugging maintenance and wanting everyone else to take care of their caches, throwdowns etc,,) that bother me. These ideas may work fine with power trails but i don't want to see them to migrate over to regular geocaches.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've started responses several times to this thread but in the end it difficult to argue over the proper way to eat ice cream.

 

Although Signal is shown licking a cone, I don't doubt that someone would complain that licking ice cream from a cone has little to do with real ice cream eating, or perhaps that we should get with times and eat ice cream with a spoon?

 

But you must admit puzzles have a lot less to do with caching than power trails.

 

If you consider power trails to be real geocaching, then yes, puzzles have absolutely nothing to do with geocaching.

 

Of all the bad ideas puzzles are the worst. I would rather re-visit the same section of the power trails I've already done 100 times than sit around doing computer searches and other " research " for solving puzzles ......just my opinion. All the negative talk is about micro's, nano's, and PT's when its the puzzles scaring the landscape.....I know some must love them because they are everywhere. I guess I can now feel the pain of those who have complained about certain cache types.

 

You may need to change your signature line, Bamboozle

 

Done !

[Clan Riffster]

Those who leave throw downs are not so much motivated by getting a smiley as much are they are in trying to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

That "Whoop Whoop" sound you hear in the distance is my, uh... Prevarication detector going off. I've had gobs of conversations with power trail cachers, who practiced throw downs. Whilst the many folks I've talked with only represent a tiny fraction of the whole, every single one advised that the primary reason for spewing out some crappy container at ground zero was to avoid the dreaded DNF. This attitude is demonstrated in the fact that, after spewing out their crappy container, they logged it as a find, rather than a note or a DNF.

 

Helping future crappy cache spewers is always a secondary reason.

[+tozainamboku]

Those who leave throw downs are not so much motivated by getting a smiley as much are they are in trying to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

That "Whoop Whoop" sound you hear in the distance is my, uh... Prevarication detector going off. I've had gobs of conversations with power trail cachers, who practiced throw downs. Whilst the many folks I've talked with only represent a tiny fraction of the whole, every single one advised that the primary reason for spewing out some crappy container at ground zero was to avoid the dreaded DNF. This attitude is demonstrated in the fact that, after spewing out their crappy container, they logged it as a find, rather than a note or a DNF.

 

Helping future crappy cache spewers is always a secondary reason.

My experience is different. When I do ask why they log a find instead of a note or DNF, the most common response is that everyone else does this. Some will say that they signed the log in the replacement cache and that "the rules say if you sign the log you can log a find online". Some say that this is allowed because being helpful to the owner and other cachers is at least as worthy as a find. Still others simply want to mark the cache so it doesn't show up on their searches. When asked about using the ignore list they'll either say they didn't know - or fall back to one of the other answers. Finally, they may throw the responsibility on the cache owner, saying that so long as the cache owner doesn't delete the find they are allowed to log it. Do you know of any throwdown loggers who complained when their log was deleted? Did they go and take back their container because the cache owner was ungrateful and wouldn't let them have a smiley?

[Clan Riffster]

My experience is different.

Uh... Okay. If you say so...

 

the most common response is that everyone else does this.

Yup. Everyone else does it so they don't get a dreaded DNF.

 

Some will say that they signed the log in the replacement cache and that "the rules say if you sign the log you can log a find online".

Yup. So they don't get a DNF.

 

Some say that this is allowed because being helpful to the owner and other cachers is at least as worthy as a find.

I helped a cacher from these forums. They wanted to know how to make the furry ammo cans I posted in the CCC Thread, so I mailed them one, along with instructions on how to make their own. Should I log that as a find? I've written Wherigo software for folks who couldn't get the builder to work. That was pretty helpful. Should I log finds on those as well? I've donated about a hundred custom camo ammo cans for various events over the years. That was pretty helpful. Should I log those as finds as well? My answer is, "Of course not". Others may feel differently.

 

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play. The most likely reason, based on my personal experience, is so they don't get a DNF.

 

Still others simply want to mark the cache so it doesn't show up on their searches.

Yeah, because folks commonly do searches for power trails hundreds of miles away... If they are close enough to have a single unfounded cache mess up their searches, wouldn't it be simple for them to return when the owner does the maintenance they agreed to when they submitted the cache for publication?

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam. They didn't want a DNF.

 

When asked about using the ignore list they'll either say they didn't know

I never found the ignore list to be relevant to these conversations, so I never pursued that angle. See the previous comment regarding proximity and searches. If they are close enough to need to put it on ignore, they could simply find it when it gets replaced.

 

Finally, they may throw the responsibility on the cache owner, saying that so long as the cache owner doesn't delete the find they are allowed to log it.

No one is arguing that. Heck, I could log the whole ET Trail today, since I viewed it in Google Earth. If the owner allows it to stand, they lend credibility to those so called finds. When I think of Geocaching, I envision going to a set of posted coordinates and locating what the owner wanted me to find, then logging my experience in the logbook, if there is one, and online. Kind of a Puritan viewpoint, so I get why you don't embrace it.

 

Do you know of any throwdown loggers who complained when their log was deleted?

How is this relevant? I've never known a power trail owner to delete a log, regardless of the provocation. Since the logs don't get deleted, as a general rule, there are few, if any, available to complain.

 

Did they go and take back their container because the cache owner was ungrateful and wouldn't let them have a smiley?

Again, irrelevant.

See above.

[+CanadianRockies]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

[+tozainamboku]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

Being that I am who I am, I get Occam's razor thrown at me a lot.

 

One formulation is that given two equally plausable explanations, choose the simpler one.

 

Since it is an obvious fact that posting a find online increments the find count, one can always claim that motivation for posting a find is to increment the find count. Any other rationale that someone gives as to why they posted a found log online is going to be more compilicated, particularly since no matter the reason given, the find count is still incremented. Ergo, by Occam's razor the alternative reason can be dismissed.

 

Judge for yourself if Occam applies here.

[Clan Riffster]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

Or, you could read what I posted, with an ear toward literary comprehension.

[+CanadianRockies]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

Or, you could read what I posted, with an ear toward literary comprehension.

Rather than being brought into play for (or assigned to) Occam's razor, obvious fallacies and fabrications get dismissed before they ever reach the stage where Occam's razor is applied.

[+Don_J]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

Being that I am who I am, I get Occam's razor thrown at me a lot.

 

One formulation is that given two equally plausable explanations, choose the simpler one.

 

Since it is an obvious fact that posting a find online increments the find count, one can always claim that motivation for posting a find is to increment the find count. Any other rationale that someone gives as to why they posted a found log online is going to be more compilicated, particularly since no matter the reason given, the find count is still incremented. Ergo, by Occam's razor the alternative reason can be dismissed.

 

Judge for yourself if Occam applies here.

 

When I replace a cache, (per-arranged and with permission), for another cacher, I log it as found. I do so for all of the reasons that you listed, including incrementing my find count. The biggest reason that I do it is probably the first that you listed. Everyone does it. It is the way that I was "trained" by more experienced cachers to do things, when I first got started.

 

After a time however, I began to see a difference in motivations for replacing a cache that obviously needs help, five miles up a trail and that of an out of town "power cacher" sticking a throwdown LPC micro in front of Walmart for an absentee cache owner. That does happen and I personally think that the motivation is clear. It's not to help anyone but themselves and to increase their numbers.

 

There are two local caches that persisted for years because cachers refused to take a DNF. In one case, the cache was missing the very first day and a cacher "replaced" it and then claimed a FTF. It was gone by the time the third person looked so they "replaced" it as well.

[Clan Riffster]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

Or, you could read what I posted, with an ear toward literary comprehension.

Rather than being brought into play for (or assigned to) Occam's razor, obvious fallacies and fabrications get dismissed before they ever reach the stage where Occam's razor is applied.

I'm operating under the myth that Toz was promoting, specifically, that when he was fed that particular whopper, he believed it. As such, for Toz, in that instance, Occam most certainly applies. He was faced with two possibilities, which he claimed were equally possible. When you find yourself in a scenario with two possible causes, which are equally plausible, Occam says pick the simplest one.

 

Occam would not apply to my observations, because I am not naive enough to believe the whopper Toz presented.

 

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[team tisri]

Actually to save the environment I propose a new way of logging power trails.

 

It's pretty simple, you post a GPX file to show you were in the general area and on that basis you claim finds on all the caches in the trail. Not only does it save environmental damage at each individual GZ it also saves the environmental impact of driving from one end of the trail to the other and back again.

But creating a .gpx file requires battery power, either in the form of disposables, which are horribly bad for the environment, or rechargeable, which for most of the country still require either a coal burning or nuclear power plant. Also, there's the whole fossil fuel and carbon footprint debate to look at, regarding driving the 1000 to 2000 miles necessary to create the .gpx file. Even if you use an electric car, you still face the problems inherent in rechargeable batteries.

 

A better solution, environmentally, would be to simply log onto Google Earth, with your solar powered tablet, and view the route in question. Then you could say you've 'virtually' visited them all, and log finds on the whole stretch.

 

It's for the chilruns!

 

Sounds like a good plan. Then from the comfort of your armchair you could create a GPX log of the route you virtually travelled and use it as evidence that you "were there".

 

My original idea was to show you were in the general area of one end of the trail rather than necessarily drove the entire trail, but taking it to the next step does just mean you can view the area from your PC and claim all the caches.

 

So I guess we can change Groundspeak's motto from "go outside, do something" to "sit on your butt in front of your computer and do nothing"

[+Semper Questio]

Actually to save the environment I propose a new way of logging power trails.

 

It's pretty simple, you post a GPX file to show you were in the general area and on that basis you claim finds on all the caches in the trail. Not only does it save environmental damage at each individual GZ it also saves the environmental impact of driving from one end of the trail to the other and back again.

But creating a .gpx file requires battery power, either in the form of disposables, which are horribly bad for the environment, or rechargeable, which for most of the country still require either a coal burning or nuclear power plant. Also, there's the whole fossil fuel and carbon footprint debate to look at, regarding driving the 1000 to 2000 miles necessary to create the .gpx file. Even if you use an electric car, you still face the problems inherent in rechargeable batteries.

 

A better solution, environmentally, would be to simply log onto Google Earth, with your solar powered tablet, and view the route in question. Then you could say you've 'virtually' visited them all, and log finds on the whole stretch.

 

It's for the chilruns!

 

Sounds like a good plan. Then from the comfort of your armchair you could create a GPX log of the route you virtually travelled and use it as evidence that you "were there".

 

My original idea was to show you were in the general area of one end of the trail rather than necessarily drove the entire trail, but taking it to the next step does just mean you can view the area from your PC and claim all the caches.

 

So I guess we can change Groundspeak's motto from "go outside, do something" to "sit on your butt in front of your computer and do nothing"

 

Nah, even using your computer to use Google Earth uses energy. Maybe that energy comes from wind farms and you just killed a bird. Maybe you are on a hydroelectric system and you have affected fish spawning patterns. Maybe you are on a coal-fired system! Egads! No, we all know the power trail is there. That's good enough. Skip that Google Earth stuff and just sign on long enough to log the finds and get your computer turned off as quickly as possible.

[+CanadianRockies]

It's been my experience that when someone gives you a real whopper of a fabrication, (such as, "being helpful is as worthy as a find"), in answer to a simple question, Occam's Razor can be brought into play.

 

...

 

Again, obvious fallacies get assigned to Occam.

You might want to have another look at Mr. Ockham's shaving instrument. I don't think it means what you believe it means:

 

Occam's razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed "theoretical scrutiny" tests, and which are equally well-supported by the evidence.

Or, you could read what I posted, with an ear toward literary comprehension.

Rather than being brought into play for (or assigned to) Occam's razor, obvious fallacies and fabrications get dismissed before they ever reach the stage where Occam's razor is applied.

I'm operating under the myth that Toz was promoting, specifically, that when he was fed that particular whopper, he believed it. As such, for Toz, in that instance, Occam most certainly applies. He was faced with two possibilities, which he claimed were equally possible. When you find yourself in a scenario with two possible causes, which are equally plausible, Occam says pick the simplest one.

And you still missed my point. Occam's razor isn't a test for soundness, since unsound ideas are often the simplest explanations. That's why you need to eliminate less sound hypotheses before you apply the razor. Your advice to Toz should have been to better test the soundness of the explanations he is examining rather than to apply Occam's razor.

 

When you apply Occam, you look for the simplest hypothesis among those that are equally well-supported by solid evidence. That's very different than looking for "the most likely reason, based on my personal experience." And performing simple tasks, like returning to find a cache that you had DNFed, is very different than judging the simplicity of competing hypotheses.

 

Edit to add this example:

 

Why is the sky blue?

 

Hypothesis A. Because the Earth is surrounded by a large sheet of translucent blue paper.

 

Hypothesis B. Because of Rayleigh scattering, through which different wavelengths of light are scattered by particles smaller than the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, such as atoms and molecules.

 

Toz examines both explanations and decides they are equally plausible. Clan Riffster suggests he apply Occam's razor. Toz does so and opts for the simpler explanation: Hypothesis A. Clan Riffster should have advised Toz to examine the evidence better.

Edited May 23, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I generally have the same opinion on throwdowns (link to cache), but I don't think this is worth getting one's knickers in a twist over - precisely for the part I bolded above. Those who leave throw downs are not so much motivated by getting a smiley as much are they are in trying to make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

Motivation is a difficult matter to argue. You may be right that they are not primarily motivated by an increased find count, or you may not. Even if you took a survey on the matter, there still lies the fact that the wording of the question will determine whether they try to defend themselves with a plausible and more acceptable explanation, or whether they admit the truth. Divining motivation, then, tends to be more of an intuitive thing and not something I intend to debate with you. At least, I don't intend to debate it with any unrealistic hope of settling the matter.

 

What I can get my knickers in a twist over, besides the oxidation of the elastic waistband, is the effect of this behavior on geocaching, regardless of the assumed motivation. If finders maintain, then hiders will expect not to. No one should hide a cache without assumed responsibility, or else it is an abandoned object, by definition, and trash, by implication. If finders claim a find on something that they hid, then they are not representing the truth, which happens to be something I value over the whim of any given individual, even if that untruth helps him sleep better at night. Then, there's the matter of accumulating cache containers at a single site, because leaving a Mini M&M container is always easier than finding one, especially if one snacks on the M&Ms on the way to the site (then you don't have to carry the container home to throw in the trash).

[+JKMonkey]

I've always thought that power trails were just loop holes in the geocaching rules that allow for easy caches to be placed in close proximity to each other. In the early days of caching, I highly doubt anyone had power trails like the ET power trail in mind, where the finds are very easy and the only daunting task is going from one to the other in such large numbers, and instead caches were made to be harder to find, more creative, and in locations that the CO wanted to bring people to.

[+tozainamboku]

If finders maintain, then hiders will expect not to. No one should hide a cache without assumed responsibility, or else it is an abandoned object, by definition, and trash, by implication.

I tend to agree here. As the practice has become more ubiquitous throwdowns are being left for caches that would be better off archived. Originally, I believe, people were helping out cache owners or were preserving caches in areas where there were few caches already. Now there are more caches left from owners who are no longer participating in the game and in cache dense areas there is little reason to preserve some cache that has been abandoned by the owner. Note that I don't argree that an abandoned cache is trash by definition. If it is still being found by others it serves a purpose and I have no problem if the community is doing minor maintenance like replacing full logs and making minor repairs. Once the cache is missing then leaving a throwdown is prolonging the inevitable. When I got a throwdown on one of my caches, I simply made the person adopt it. If he wanted to maintain the cache he was welcomed to accept the responsibility that goes with that.

 

If finders claim a find on something that they hid, then they are not representing the truth, which happens to be something I value over the whim of any given individual, even if that untruth helps him sleep better at night.

I can't argue with those who find use of the Found It log for something they didn't find bizarre. However I don't tend to worry that this level of dishonesty is a horrible thing. I realize that some people have been brought up to believe that any lie is wrong. They no doubt answer honestly if their wife asks if she looks fat in this dress. To me a Found Log on a throwdown is about as innocous as a lie can be. After all it indicates as of that date at least there was a cache to find. Of course the text in the log will also honestly report that the cache is a replacement.

 

Then, there's the matter of accumulating cache containers at a single site, because leaving a Mini M&M container is always easier than finding one, especially if one snacks on the M&Ms on the way to the site (then you don't have to carry the container home to throw in the trash).

Personally, I find this righteous indignation that throwdowns are litter silly. I have found more multiple caches where the owner left a replacement when they couldn't find their own cache than I have found throwdowns. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of throwdowns are replacing caches that are missing. When there are duplicate caches it's because the original was so well hiddend that the person leaving the replacement couldn't find it. At that point there are two caches. There is not a pile of caches because nobody is looking for caches anymore.

 

Even if I grant the assumption that these people just want a smiley, I still think they all have more fun when they actually find the cache. I don't believe that people are leaving throwdowns - even on power trails - to avoid having to search and find something.

 

I actually enjoy trying to find both the original and the replacement when I see someone has left a throwdown. I once found three caches at one location. This was not a powertrail. It turned out the cache was reported missing. Someone left a throwdown. I'm not sure if they had the owner's permission or not. The owner later check and could not find either their original cache or throwdown. So they left another.

 

I've DNF enough caches to know that sometimes you miss even what should be an easy find. I guess I could be annoyed that people who leave throwdowns are so sure of themselves that rather than a DNF they leave a replacement. Instead I find the best revenge is to try to prove that they were wrong. Finding multiple caches is sweet.

[Clan Riffster]

And you still missed my point.

And you still missed my point...

In Toz's explanation, there was no need to examine the evidence, as, according to the myth he was proselytizing, both answers held equal degrees of validity, after careful scrutiny. A second evaluation of the evidence, by someone so naive as to believe such silliness, would lead to the same conclusion, that both answers were equally valid. My point was, if he really believed that, (cough cough), then Occam would apply, as one of those two supposedly equally valid reasons is a simple one.

 

Examining the evidence would work fine, in my case, since I happen to believe, or would be willing to learn, that one of the reasons postulated by Toz was a fabrication.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+CanadianRockies]

In Toz's explanation, there was no need to examine the evidence, as, according to the myth he was proselytizing, both answers held equal degrees of validity, after careful scrutiny. A second evaluation of the evidence, by someone so naive as to believe such silliness, would lead to the same conclusion, that both answers were equally valid. My point was, if he really believed that, (cough cough), then Occam would apply, as one of those two supposedly equally valid reasons is a simple one.

You still don't get it. Occam's razor isn't the right tool to be applied by someone "so naive as to believe such silliness." It relies upon the competing hypotheses being equally well-supported by solid evidence.

 

If the supporting evidence is weak, then Occam's razor breaks down, since the simplest hypothesis often is wrong. For example, the sky is blue because the Earth is surrounded by a large sheet of translucent blue paper.

 

If you want to help such a naive person, then don't suggest Occam's razor. Instead, help them understand why the evidence for the silly hypothesis doesn't hold up under proper scrutiny.

 

Suggesting that someone apply Occam's razor when they are too naive to understand solid evidence makes about as much sense as asking a random person on the street to build you a new home.

Edited May 23, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[Clan Riffster]

You still don't get it.

You still don't get it.

Occam's razor relies upon the competing hypotheses being equally valid.

(Valid = well supported by solid evidence)

In Toz's claim, they are equally valid.

[+humboldt flier]

 

Awesome BFP, but now I have to clean my computer screen of the goo which I spewed upon it.

 

Thanks for the comedic break,

 

LOL, LOL

[+CanadianRockies]

Occam's razor relies upon the competing hypotheses being equally valid.

(Valid = well supported by solid evidence)

In Toz's claim, they are equally valid.

But claiming that two competing hypotheses are equally supported by solid evidence doesn't make them so. This is especially true when you describe the person who is examining the evidence as "so naive as to believe such silliness."

 

Recommending that such a person use Occam's razor when you know the hypotheses are not equally supported by solid evidence is a ridiculous suggestion that easily could result in them picking a simple but incorrect hypotheses.

 

You don't really want people believing the sky is blue because the Earth is surrounded by translucent blue paper, do you?

[+fizzymagic]

You still don't get it.

Occam's razor relies upon the competing hypotheses being equally valid.

(Valid = well supported by solid evidence)

In Toz's claim, they are equally valid.

 

I don't believe that anybody here is accurately characterizing Occam's razor.

 

It is less about simplicity and more about parsimony. The difference is subtle but important. A parsimonious explanation is one that is predictive and requires the minimum number of hypotheses or variables.

 

Occam's razor applies quite clearly in this situation. I'll go over it in some detail to explain.

 

There are 2 competing theories about why people throw down caches on power trails:

• They want the smileys.
  
• They want to make caching better for others.
  

 

Notice that the theories are about power trails. Why do cachers do power trails? I submit that it is for the smileys. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and a great deal of evidence in support of this theory, let's all agree to this.

 

Then the parsimony of the theories about throwdowns is different. The first requires no additional hypothesis: cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do the power trails in the first place: for the smileys.

 

The second theory requires a new hypothesis: people throw down new caches on power trails to help future cachers, not for the smileys.

 

Occam's razor would say that in the absence of additional evidence, the first theory is more likely than the second, since it is able to explain two phenomena (doing the power trail and throwing down the caches) with a single explanatory hypothesis. The second theory is less parsimonious.

 

Is that clear enough?