High numbers cachers--

[+The A-Team]

Now what do you think these "cheaters" can do about the couch potato logging, as they ironically destroyed the evidence themselves?

I'm going to channel my inner Toz and answer your question thus:

 

It doesn't matter. The find count is not a score. To paraphrase Jeremy, there's no need to get your knickers in a twist about what someone else considers a find.

 

</toz>

 

 

Speaking only for myself but I don't care about my own find count. I'm certainly not going to care about the find count of others. What I do object to is the notion that if one is in pursuit of high numbers it's acceptable to make up their own rules if helps shave off a few seconds in between finds, especially when they are used when finding caches that were not intended to be put in place for those in pursuit of high numbers.

I absolutely agree. Cheesy logging practices are one thing, but moving or otherwise interfering with cache containers is a whole other story. If someone logs a find on a cache they didn't find, the extent of my response would be a roll of the eyes. However, if I learned that someone was swapping on non-PT caches, they'd get a piece of my mind. The former doesn't directly affect other cachers, but the latter certainly does.

[+The A-Team]

Likely a lot of small number cachers are cheaters too because we know that they all want to be high number cachers.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I don't either. If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

FWIW, there are a number of "high-number" cachers (ie. >10000 finds) in my area that I know quite well. These are all good, decent, respectful people that would not and do not engage in any of the vandalistic practices described throughout this discussion. That being said, I've personally seen evidence of high-number cachers who were visiting the area that engaged in some unsavoury caching behaviour (I will not name names).

 

It may not be fair to paint all high-number cachers with the "cheater" or "vandal" brush, but that group isn't free of bad eggs, either.

[+Ma & Pa]

Likely a lot of small number cachers are cheaters too because we know that they all want to be high number cachers.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I don't either. If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

FWIW, there are a number of "high-number" cachers (ie. >10000 finds) in my area that I know quite well. These are all good, decent, respectful people that would not and do not engage in any of the vandalistic practices described throughout this discussion. That being said, I've personally seen evidence of high-number cachers who were visiting the area that engaged in some unsavoury caching behaviour (I will not name names).

 

It may not be fair to paint all high-number cachers with the "cheater" or "vandal" brush, but that group isn't free of bad eggs, either.

 

I think the responses certainly prove the point that people seem more willing to believe that high number cachers cheat more than small number cachers cheat. I think cheating is a personality thing. If you are the kind of person who cheats, you will cheat no matter how many you have and if you are not the kind of person who cheats, it is likely that you wont cheat no matter how many you have.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while and hated the title and the shaming and the accusations, and the rumours. I was reluctant to comment but I could no longer keep quiet.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Ma & Pa

[+jellis]

Thing is I doubt too many Power Cachers read the forums so all this discussion is not going to help stop it.

 

Of course it does not stop it, but still it worries me that some people who come to this thread think that swapping containers (without permission from the cache owner) is acceptable for certain cache types.

I didn't see anyone here saying it was acceptable on certain cache types other then PTs and GeoArts

 

But that's exactly the point. I'm concerned about the fact that several cachers here (including yourself) think that for PTs and GeoArts it's acceptable to swap containers regardless of what the involved cache owners think.

 

Cezanne

 

I'm with Cezanne on this one and go beyond his concerns. I don't understand why it's acceptable even if a cache owner deems it OK.

 

Where does it end? As long as it's a PT or GeoArt cache owners can make up their own rules. Why even bother with a logsheet? Why even bother with a container? Why are there any rules to PTs and GeoArt? And those that think they've found a PT cache or GeoArt cache can treat any cache as if geocaching rules don't apply. What stops new cachers,especially app users who never visit the website, forums or read guidelines, from thinking PT behaviour applies to all caches?

I think I made that rant on another thread

[+Mudfrog]

Likely a lot of small number cachers are cheaters too because we know that they all want to be high number cachers.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I don't either. If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

FWIW, there are a number of "high-number" cachers (ie. >10000 finds) in my area that I know quite well. These are all good, decent, respectful people that would not and do not engage in any of the vandalistic practices described throughout this discussion. That being said, I've personally seen evidence of high-number cachers who were visiting the area that engaged in some unsavoury caching behaviour (I will not name names).

 

It may not be fair to paint all high-number cachers with the "cheater" or "vandal" brush, but that group isn't free of bad eggs, either.

 

I think the responses certainly prove the point that people seem more willing to believe that high number cachers cheat more than small number cachers cheat. I think cheating is a personality thing. If you are the kind of person who cheats, you will cheat no matter how many you have and if you are not the kind of person who cheats, it is likely that you wont cheat no matter how many you have.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while and hated the title and the shaming and the accusations, and the rumours. I was reluctant to comment but I could no longer keep quiet.

 

Seems pretty obvious that if there is any cheating going on, that it's probably not being done by a person with a low find count.

[+tozainamboku]

Like some others, I really don't care what other people wish to count as finds. It has absolutely no effect on my caching. What I do feel has an effect are the occasions when a cache owner has placed a special (non-generic) cache for people to find and these caches have been swapped or replaced with a generic container by someone who views caches as generic and sees no problem with swapping or replacing caches (in fact they may see these activities as beneficial).

 

Unfortunately, instead of trying to deal with unwanted swapping of containers or leaving of replacements, this thread seems to be dominated by people whose knickers have gotten twisted by what they view as rampant "cheating" by people who have a high number of cache finds. While certain tactics that may be used by power cachers to maximize the number of finds in a day might be called cheating by puritans, telling someone that their method of counting finds is cheating won't stop them from doing these things. These high number cachers are not suddenly going to see the light and convert to puritianism as they work the powertrail to Damascus. I'd think you would be more effective trying to explain what these tactics do to people who want something besides a generic find. But so long as people let their uncomfortable knickers influence their judgment of others, there is little hope of that happening.

[+Ma & Pa]

Likely a lot of small number cachers are cheaters too because we know that they all want to be high number cachers.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I don't either. If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

FWIW, there are a number of "high-number" cachers (ie. >10000 finds) in my area that I know quite well. These are all good, decent, respectful people that would not and do not engage in any of the vandalistic practices described throughout this discussion. That being said, I've personally seen evidence of high-number cachers who were visiting the area that engaged in some unsavoury caching behaviour (I will not name names).

 

It may not be fair to paint all high-number cachers with the "cheater" or "vandal" brush, but that group isn't free of bad eggs, either.

 

I think the responses certainly prove the point that people seem more willing to believe that high number cachers cheat more than small number cachers cheat. I think cheating is a personality thing. If you are the kind of person who cheats, you will cheat no matter how many you have and if you are not the kind of person who cheats, it is likely that you wont cheat no matter how many you have.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while and hated the title and the shaming and the accusations, and the rumours. I was reluctant to comment but I could no longer keep quiet.

 

Seems pretty obvious that if there is any cheating going on, that it's probably not being done by a person with a low find count.

 

Why does it seem obvious? We know a lot of people with high counts They get those counts by caching a lot. They have the time to cache and they do it a lot.

[+wmpastor]

Likely a lot of small number cachers are cheaters too because we know that they all want to be high number cachers.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I don't either. If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

FWIW, there are a number of "high-number" cachers (ie. >10000 finds) in my area that I know quite well. These are all good, decent, respectful people that would not and do not engage in any of the vandalistic practices described throughout this discussion. That being said, I've personally seen evidence of high-number cachers who were visiting the area that engaged in some unsavoury caching behaviour (I will not name names).

 

It may not be fair to paint all high-number cachers with the "cheater" or "vandal" brush, but that group isn't free of bad eggs, either.

 

I think the responses certainly prove the point that people seem more willing to believe that high number cachers cheat more than small number cachers cheat. I think cheating is a personality thing. If you are the kind of person who cheats, you will cheat no matter how many you have and if you are not the kind of person who cheats, it is likely that you wont cheat no matter how many you have.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while and hated the title and the shaming and the accusations, and the rumours. I was reluctant to comment but I could no longer keep quiet.

 

Seems pretty obvious that if there is any cheating going on, that it's probably not being done by a person with a low find count.

 

Why does it seem obvious? We know a lot of people with high counts They get those counts by caching a lot. They have the time to cache and they do it a lot.

 

Maybe because -

If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

The prime suspects are flying under the radar -- the *medium-numbers* cachers. They have an appetite for glory, but haven't quite arrived. And they cache more than low-numbers cachers.

 

In other words, medium-numbers cachers have the motive and opportunity to cut corners. Just sayin'!

 

[+briansnat]

 

The prime suspects are flying under the radar -- the *medium-numbers* cachers. They have an appetite for glory, but haven't quite arrived. And they cache more than low-numbers cachers.

 

In other words, medium-numbers cachers have the motive and opportunity to cut corners. Just sayin'!

 

 

What about the higher low number cachers and the lower medium number cachers?

[+WRASTRO]

How about this discussion stay focused on the theory that some high find count cachers play fast and loose with the generally accepted norms within the caching community? This has nothing to do with "medium-numbers cachers" or "low-numbers cachers" since the topic is all about high numbers cachers and their behaviors.

[+dprovan]

As previously asked, how long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

 

Swapping a log requires opening the cache, retrieving the log, inserting a replacement log, and closing the cache.

Sounds like about as much time as it would take to go into your kit to pull out your rarely used wire snippers. Even if you didn't stop for a second to consider whether you're being an absolute jerk.

[cezanne]

Why does it seem obvious? We know a lot of people with high counts They get those counts by caching a lot. They have the time to cache and they do it a lot.

 

To comfort you, I know of several cases where cachers with low numbers cheated (puzzle caches, souvenirs etc).

 

I do not know any low number cachers however that apply container swapping techniques and that's the part of the topic I care about. Those high number cachers that take the time to retrieve a cache, take out the log sheet, sign it, put everything back at its place and then rehide the cache properly, are welcome to visit as many caches they wish to visit and find time for. The issue are those that affect others by not taking the time to behave as described above.

[+wmpastor]

How about this discussion stay focused on the theory that some high find count cachers play fast and loose with the generally accepted norms within the caching community? This has nothing to do with "medium-numbers cachers" or "low-numbers cachers" since the topic is all about high numbers cachers and their behaviors.

 

The power trail techniques described *may* be okay on power trails - if the cache owners accept the results and do maintenance. (Some reviewers will not accept the maintenance-by-cachers plan as adequate.)

 

While others may have no interest in a frenetic rush through a power trail, it's not a competitive game (find count doesn't get you a prize), so the practices are tolerated.

 

The problem raised here is that once these techniques are accepted for power trails, they are likely to spill over into other areas and cause damage to well-maintained conventional caches. Since Groundspeak is unlikely to regulate power trails, the only other thing that comes to mind is community pressure. It sounds like that's happening here - the group mentioned in this thread has been feeling the heat. Hopefully this thread will cause the word to get around that if you want to go wild and crazy on a power trail, make sure that every cache you find is actually part of the trail, and leave that behavior behind when you go to conventional caches.

[+Ma & Pa]

Why does it seem obvious? We know a lot of people with high counts They get those counts by caching a lot. They have the time to cache and they do it a lot.

 

To comfort you, I know of several cases where cachers with low numbers cheated (puzzle caches, souvenirs etc).

 

I do not know any low number cachers however that apply container swapping techniques and that's the part of the topic I care about. Those high number cachers that take the time to retrieve a cache, take out the log sheet, sign it, put everything back at its place and then rehide the cache properly, are welcome to visit as many caches they wish to visit and find time for. The issue are those that affect others by not taking the time to behave as described above.

.

.

 

How about this discussion stay focused on the theory that some high find count cachers play fast and loose with the generally accepted norms within the caching community? This has nothing to do with "medium-numbers cachers" or "low-numbers cachers" since the topic is all about high numbers cachers and their behaviors.

 

The part about "medium-numbers cachers" or "low-numbers cachers" was posted as sarcasm I believe although they did not hold up their sarcasm signs.

 

I have no problem with the discussion of topic dealing with the habits of some cachers on power trails, I just don't think it is right to point the finger at the high number cachers.

 

BTW we have many long caching series here in Maritime Canada. Some are P & G series but most are on hiking trails or bike trails or ATV trails and I have never heard of anyone exchanging containers. Is this only practiced on the power tails out west? BTW what is the definition of power trail? Is there a number that turns a trail of caches into a power trail?

 

.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Like some others, I really don't care what other people wish to count as finds. It has absolutely no effect on my caching. What I do feel has an effect are the occasions when a cache owner has placed a special (non-generic) cache for people to find and these caches have been swapped or replaced with a generic container by someone who views caches as generic and sees no problem with swapping or replacing caches (in fact they may see these activities as beneficial).

 

Unfortunately, instead of trying to deal with unwanted swapping of containers or leaving of replacements, this thread seems to be dominated by people whose knickers have gotten twisted by what they view as rampant "cheating" by people who have a high number of cache finds. While certain tactics that may be used by power cachers to maximize the number of finds in a day might be called cheating by puritans, telling someone that their method of counting finds is cheating won't stop them from doing these things. These high number cachers are not suddenly going to see the light and convert to puritianism as they work the powertrail to Damascus. I'd think you would be more effective trying to explain what these tactics do to people who want something besides a generic find. But so long as people let their uncomfortable knickers influence their judgment of others, there is little hope of that happening.

 

I don't think that characterizing some that have an opinion on the issue as puritans with twisted knickers is very productive either.

[+FunnyNose]

BTW what is the definition of power trail? Is there a number that turns a trail of caches into a power trail?

 

Back in 2005 I attempted to place 3 caches along a trail in a 80 acre park. They were denied because it was called a power trail.

 

So the answer is 3.

[+redsox_mark]

 

BTW we have many long caching series here in Maritime Canada. Some are P & G series but most are on hiking trails or bike trails or ATV trails and I have never heard of anyone exchanging containers. Is this only practiced on the power tails out west? BTW what is the definition of power trail? Is there a number that turns a trail of caches into a power trail?

 

I've not seen this where I am (England) either. I've only heard of it happening in the large US trails and only via this forum.

 

Whilst there is no agreed definition of a power trail, I would think that container swapping would only come into play with "very large" trails (~1000 or more). With a trail of 100, the extra time taken to open, sign, close is far less significant than if there is 1000 or 2000.

[+TriciaG]

I would think swapping would only occur on automobile power trails. Hiking or biking, you can't walk/bike to the next cache and sign the log at the same time. Well, I wouldn't be able to, anyway.

[Mr.Yuck]

I would think swapping would only occur on automobile power trails. Hiking or biking, you can't walk/bike to the next cache and sign the log at the same time. Well, I wouldn't be able to, anyway.

 

I would say automobile trails only, and only in the Western U.S., as broad of a term as that is. And to answer Ma&Pa, yes, it is only "high number cachers" leapfrogging and container swapping. I just couldn't imagine a casual cacher with a few hundred finds doing or even knowing about these practices. As rare as it is to see someone like that even do one of these trails.

 

NOTE: Not implying every "high number cacher" leapfrogs or swaps containers on say the ET trail. Nope. But the ones that do are.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

BTW we have many long caching series here in Maritime Canada. Some are P & G series but most are on hiking trails or bike trails or ATV trails and I have never heard of anyone exchanging containers. Is this only practiced on the power tails out west? BTW what is the definition of power trail? Is there a number that turns a trail of caches into a power trail?

 

I've not seen this where I am (England) either. I've only heard of it happening in the large US trails and only via this forum.

 

Whilst there is no agreed definition of a power trail, I would think that container swapping would only come into play with "very large" trails (~1000 or more). With a trail of 100, the extra time taken to open, sign, close is far less significant than if there is 1000 or 2000.

 

I don't think that there can be a specific number used as threshold for when a group of caches is considered a power trail. To me, whether or not a group of caches can be called a "power trail" is define by the intent the CO (or COs) had when placing the caches. If the primary purpose is to place caches which facilitate "finding" as many caches as possible in as short a period of time as possible, it's a power trail. A true "numbers trail" (as some like to call it) would have enough caches that there were more caches available than one could expect to find in a 24 hour period. That not only allows cachers to pat themselves on the back for having a high find count, but also to have a high number for "number of caches found in a day". When the purpose of a group of caches is to provide as many opportunities for a find in a short period, those caught up in the numbers mentality are going to take shortcuts. The issue in this thread is that the numbers mentality doesn't go away upon finding a cache that was *not* created for the purposes of finding as many caches as possible within a limited time period, and some will employ the same shortcuts too broadly.

 

 

[+Ma & Pa]

I would think swapping would only occur on automobile power trails. Hiking or biking, you can't walk/bike to the next cache and sign the log at the same time. Well, I wouldn't be able to, anyway.

 

I would say automobile trails only, and only in the Western U.S., as broad of a term as that is. And to answer Ma&Pa, yes, it is only "high number cachers" leapfrogging and container swapping. I just couldn't imagine a casual cacher with a few hundred finds doing or even knowing about these practices. As rare as it is to see someone like that even do one of these trails.

 

NOTE: Not implying every "high number cacher" leapfrogs or swaps containers on say the ET trail. Nope. But the ones that do are.

 

You mention casual cachers with numbers in the hundreds. They are obviously not high number cachers. At what point does one cross the line into the terrible high numbers? So what is the definition of "high number cacher"?

 

.

[+wmpastor]

I've not seen this where I am (England) either. I've only heard of it happening in the large US trails and only via this forum.

I don't have a link right now, but there are videos of it online. The cars zoom, then brake hard in 0.1 mile, "cacher" runs 3 meters to a pile of rocks, throws down the pre-signed log and container, takes the just-found container back to the car to be signed by a passenger and swapped at the next identical cache while the car zooms to the next cache, etc.

Worth seeing once, worth doing never.

 

IMO.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I would think swapping would only occur on automobile power trails. Hiking or biking, you can't walk/bike to the next cache and sign the log at the same time. Well, I wouldn't be able to, anyway.

 

I would say automobile trails only, and only in the Western U.S., as broad of a term as that is. And to answer Ma&Pa, yes, it is only "high number cachers" leapfrogging and container swapping. I just couldn't imagine a casual cacher with a few hundred finds doing or even knowing about these practices. As rare as it is to see someone like that even do one of these trails.

 

NOTE: Not implying every "high number cacher" leapfrogs or swaps containers on say the ET trail. Nope. But the ones that do are.

 

You mention casual cachers with numbers in the hundreds. They are obviously not high number cachers. At what point does one cross the line into the terrible high numbers? So what is the definition of "high number cacher"?

 

.

 

That kind of depends on where you live? There is a high concentration of a large series of caches placed for the purpose of achieving a high numbers in some areas that just don't exist in other areas. Someone living within a days drive of southern Nevada or PEI can easily achieve a 10 figure find count, while in most countries in the world, achieving a 4 digit find count would be extremely rare. According to your stats you have over 20K finds. I doubt that anyone living in Africa, Central or South America has more than 10K.

Edited October 24, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher

[+Ma & Pa]

 

You mention casual cachers with numbers in the hundreds. They are obviously not high number cachers. At what point does one cross the line into the terrible high numbers? So what is the definition of "high number cacher"?

 

.

 

That kind of depends on where you live? There is a high concentration of a large series of caches placed for the purpose of achieving a high numbers in some areas that just don't exist in other areas. Someone living within a days drive of southern Nevada or PEI can easily achieve a 10 figure find count, while in most countries in the world, achieving a 4 digit find count would be extremely rare. According to your stats you have over 20K finds. I doubt that anyone living in Africa, Central or South America has more than 10K.

 

You are absolutely right, although a good portion of the series on PEI are on hiking or biking trails. or hikes through woodlots. I don't recall ever hearing of container swapping there but there have been rumours of some splitting up of groups.

 

In addition to having lots of caches nearby, you have to have the time to go get them for your numbers to go up. I think I am going off topic now so I may start another thread.

 

.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Ma & Pa

[+Mudfrog]

Likely a lot of small number cachers are cheaters too because we know that they all want to be high number cachers.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I don't either. If they were cheaters, they'd already have high numbers!

 

FWIW, there are a number of "high-number" cachers (ie. >10000 finds) in my area that I know quite well. These are all good, decent, respectful people that would not and do not engage in any of the vandalistic practices described throughout this discussion. That being said, I've personally seen evidence of high-number cachers who were visiting the area that engaged in some unsavoury caching behaviour (I will not name names).

 

It may not be fair to paint all high-number cachers with the "cheater" or "vandal" brush, but that group isn't free of bad eggs, either.

 

I think the responses certainly prove the point that people seem more willing to believe that high number cachers cheat more than small number cachers cheat. I think cheating is a personality thing. If you are the kind of person who cheats, you will cheat no matter how many you have and if you are not the kind of person who cheats, it is likely that you wont cheat no matter how many you have.

 

I have been reading this thread for a while and hated the title and the shaming and the accusations, and the rumours. I was reluctant to comment but I could no longer keep quiet.

 

Seems pretty obvious that if there is any cheating going on, that it's probably not being done by a person with a low find count.

 

Why does it seem obvious? We know a lot of people with high counts They get those counts by caching a lot. They have the time to cache and they do it a lot.

 

I don't mean to imply that all cachers with high numbers partake in those shady practices used on some power trails. What we're talking about here is people who want that big smiley count at any cost. Many of them are probably trying to get as many as they can in an outing and have come up with silly ways to do it. Obviously, low numbers people who've been caching for a while don't fall into this category.

[+redsox_mark]

I've not done one of these "mega" power trails, but I would think the motivation for using techniques like container swapping has to do with trying to complete the entire trail of 2000 or whatever caches in as short of time as possible (before going insane). A cacher with 500 finds could be just as tempted to do this as one with 5000 or 50,000. I'm not sure it is true that cachers with a large number of finds are more likely to do this.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I've not seen this where I am (England) either. I've only heard of it happening in the large US trails and only via this forum.

I don't have a link right now, but there are videos of it online. The cars zoom, then brake hard in 0.1 mile, "cacher" runs 3 meters to a pile of rocks, throws down the pre-signed log and container, takes the just-found container back to the car to be signed by a passenger and swapped at the next identical cache while the car zooms to the next cache, etc.

Worth seeing once, worth doing never.

 

IMO.

 

Aren't three containers involved? That way the signing doesn't hold up the next stop?

[+Ma & Pa]

I've not done one of these "mega" power trails, but I would think the motivation for using techniques like container swapping has to do with trying to complete the entire trail of 2000 or whatever caches in as short of time as possible (before going insane). A cacher with 500 finds could be just as tempted to do this as one with 5000 or 50,000. I'm not sure it is true that cachers with a large number of finds are more likely to do this.

 

+1

 

I never thought of it in that way but I agree that it is likely that the intent has more to do with getting it done.

[4wheelin_fool]

Here is the part you conveniently missed:

 

I don't know how bogus it would be if someone discovered a container from another hide with the logsheet intact. You certainly cant say that a muggle did it and someone else threw down a container if it's someone else's hide and logsheet.

Generic cacher is doing a power trail and swapping containers. In the middle of the power trail is a cache that is not part of the trail. The cache is apperantly missing. (Perhaps a muggle cut the tie and stole the cache?) the generic cacher leaves the container from the powertrail in its place. (Possibly mistaking the this cache a part of the trail, since the container is missing he doesn't find it tied to a fence in a way that would obviously indicate it wasn't).

 

But since it was a high number cacher, its much simpler to imagine that the wire was cut in order to not be slowed down.

 

I am familiar with the incident, and if I'm not mistaken, there were not one or two containers ripped from their tether, but several.

 

I know you live in an imaginary world filled with puritans, and villainous muggles who you believe just happened to vandalize them all at once, with the mighty power cachers riding in to save the day, but you need to step into reality. Yes, it's possible that a non cacher found several duct taped pill bottles tied to objects very close to a powertrail and decided to remove them all at the same time and kept the garbage as prizes, but not likely. I think you are now squarely in Alex Jones territory.

 

What likely happened is that the team was running along smoothly like a well oiled sewing machine. Switch containers, run back to the car and open it, stamp it, while the driver heads to the next one. Switch containers, run back to the car, open and stamp it, while the driver heads to the next one. Then suddenly numnuts got out of the car and ran up to the cache with one in his hand, prestamped. When he saw it was tied down, he became suddenly mystified. What should I do? Sign the log? I have no pen, and the ink stamper is in the car. The horn honked because his allotted 5 seconds was used up burning his last brain cell thinking about it, so he ripped it away and cussed out the person who did it, and probably thought it was a joke, or thought he was making the world better for everyone. After that, ripping the next one away was much simpler, as he didn't think about it at all. If there was any type of language on the page asking not to switch containers, it would not have been noticed anyhow. This isn't brain surgery. This is a bastardized deviation of a very simple game.

[+dprovan]

I don't have a link right now, but there are videos of it online. The cars zoom, then brake hard in 0.1 mile, "cacher" runs 3 meters to a pile of rocks, throws down the pre-signed log and container, takes the just-found container back to the car to be signed by a passenger and swapped at the next identical cache while the car zooms to the next cache, etc.

I must have missed that video. The power trail video I saw had 2 people jump out, find the cache, then one opened and held the log for the other to stamp. That took 2 seconds, so I guess that made them slackers in the power trail game.

[Mr.Yuck]

I would think swapping would only occur on automobile power trails. Hiking or biking, you can't walk/bike to the next cache and sign the log at the same time. Well, I wouldn't be able to, anyway.

 

I would say automobile trails only, and only in the Western U.S., as broad of a term as that is. And to answer Ma&Pa, yes, it is only "high number cachers" leapfrogging and container swapping. I just couldn't imagine a casual cacher with a few hundred finds doing or even knowing about these practices. As rare as it is to see someone like that even do one of these trails.

 

NOTE: Not implying every "high number cacher" leapfrogs or swaps containers on say the ET trail. Nope. But the ones that do are.

 

You mention casual cachers with numbers in the hundreds. They are obviously not high number cachers. At what point does one cross the line into the terrible high numbers? So what is the definition of "high number cacher"?

 

.

 

I can tell someone is probably offended. Take no offense, I'm almost sure you've made references to being retired in the past. I could get some laughs and say "anyone with more finds than me". I dunno, how does 1,000 finds per year or more career average sound? So even people who joined last October and have more than 1,000 finds already can get some love. By the way, 99.8% of these people probably do not leapfrog or container swap in the western U.S. Desert.

[+CanadianRockies]

As previously asked, how long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

 

Swapping a log requires opening the cache, retrieving the log, inserting a replacement log, and closing the cache.

Sounds like about as much time as it would take to go into your kit to pull out your rarely used wire snippers. Even if you didn't stop for a second to consider whether you're being an absolute jerk.

Yes, you're correct...for the first one. But if there were a series of tethered caches, I'd then have my occasionally used Leatherman in hand and only need about half a second to snip the wires for each of the remaining caches...if I was being an absolute jerk.

 

And there are plenty of series that aren't intended to be part of power trails (or at least not allow for cache swapping). In fact, I've got a series of 20 bison tubes wired in place. Fortunately, nobody has powered through it using any cache swapping methods.

[+Ma & Pa]

I would think swapping would only occur on automobile power trails. Hiking or biking, you can't walk/bike to the next cache and sign the log at the same time. Well, I wouldn't be able to, anyway.

 

I would say automobile trails only, and only in the Western U.S., as broad of a term as that is. And to answer Ma&Pa, yes, it is only "high number cachers" leapfrogging and container swapping. I just couldn't imagine a casual cacher with a few hundred finds doing or even knowing about these practices. As rare as it is to see someone like that even do one of these trails.

 

NOTE: Not implying every "high number cacher" leapfrogs or swaps containers on say the ET trail. Nope. But the ones that do are.

 

You mention casual cachers with numbers in the hundreds. They are obviously not high number cachers. At what point does one cross the line into the terrible high numbers? So what is the definition of "high number cacher"?

 

.

 

I can tell someone is probably offended. Take no offense, I'm almost sure you've made references to being retired in the past. I could get some laughs and say "anyone with more finds than me". I dunno, how does 1,000 finds per year or more career average sound? So even people who joined last October and have more than 1,000 finds already can get some love. By the way, 99.8% of these people probably do not leapfrog or container swap in the western U.S. Desert.

 

Actually I am not offended and yes I have often mentioned that we have been retired for 18 years and that caching is our job.

 

I just have this thing about painting everyone with the same brush. So I saw the title as being similar to stuff we see in the media or in social media. You know things like

 

All High number cachers cheat

All muslims are terrorists

All left wing people are communists

All Republicans are anti environment

All male figure skaters are gay

 

I had a thread some time ago about high number caching. I think I will start a new one

 

.

 

.

[+Ma & Pa]

BTW we have a nephew who is a figure skater with Disney on Ice. Here is photo from his recent wedding. (yeah off topic)

 

 

.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've not seen this where I am (England) either. I've only heard of it happening in the large US trails and only via this forum.

I don't have a link right now, but there are videos of it online. The cars zoom, then brake hard in 0.1 mile, "cacher" runs 3 meters to a pile of rocks, throws down the pre-signed log and container, takes the just-found container back to the car to be signed by a passenger and swapped at the next identical cache while the car zooms to the next cache, etc.

Worth seeing once, worth doing never.

 

IMO.

 

Aren't three containers involved? That way the signing doesn't hold up the next stop?

 

Although the video that was posted only shows two, the third one is in in the pocket of the finder, ready to be thrown down if there isn't a cache found at GZ within 5 seconds.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

BTW we have a nephew who is a figure skater with Disney on Ice. Here is photo from his recent wedding. (yeah off topic)

.

 

One of my co-workers used to work at Disney. Her job? Tinkerbell.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

I've not done one of these "mega" power trails, but I would think the motivation for using techniques like container swapping has to do with trying to complete the entire trail of 2000 or whatever caches in as short of time as possible (before going insane). A cacher with 500 finds could be just as tempted to do this as one with 5000 or 50,000. I'm not sure it is true that cachers with a large number of finds are more likely to do this.

 

I can definitely understand the motivation to get as many as i could in the shortest time possible if i wanted numbers or to break a personal record. Only thing is, i would use normal geocaching techniques for this. I'd locate each cache, sign or stamp each log, and rehide each back in the same spot i found em in. No, i wouldn't end up with a monstrous smiley count but i would feel good about whatever i came up with knowing that i didn't fudge in any way.

 

Counting every cache as found when you swap, leap, or split is plain silly. It's some kind of game but it's not geocaching!

Edited October 24, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've not done one of these "mega" power trails, but I would think the motivation for using techniques like container swapping has to do with trying to complete the entire trail of 2000 or whatever caches in as short of time as possible (before going insane). A cacher with 500 finds could be just as tempted to do this as one with 5000 or 50,000. I'm not sure it is true that cachers with a large number of finds are more likely to do this.

 

I can definitely understand the motivation to get as many as i could in the shortest time possible if i wanted numbers or to break a personal record. Only thing is, i would use normal geocaching techniques for this. I'd locate each cache, sign or stamp each log, and rehide each back in the same spot i found em in. No, i wouldn't end up with a monstrous smiley count but i would feel good about whatever i came up with knowing that i didn't fudge in any way.

 

Counting every cache as found when you swap, leap, or split is plain silly. It's some kind of game but it's not geocaching!

 

Actually when swapping every container is found and a log is signed but not at GZ.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's a bastardized form of geocaching, deviating from a very simple process.

[+Uncle Alaska]

I know for a fact that one of the cachers mentioned by the OP has dropped several "throwdowns" in my area without permission of the CO and sometimes without even mentioning it in the log. This was done on Puzzle caches, not power trails. In my opinion, this is not Geocaching. Can't find it? DNF or request a owner maintenance/archival...Throwdowns may seem acceptable on a power trail, but to use the same technique elsewhere seems unacceptable (in my opinion).

[+wmpastor]

I've not seen this where I am (England) either. I've only heard of it happening in the large US trails and only via this forum.

I don't have a link right now, but there are videos of it online. The cars zoom, then brake hard in 0.1 mile, "cacher" runs 3 meters to a pile of rocks, throws down the pre-signed log and container, takes the just-found container back to the car to be signed by a passenger and swapped at the next identical cache while the car zooms to the next cache, etc.

Worth seeing once, worth doing never.

 

IMO.

 

Aren't three containers involved? That way the signing doesn't hold up the next stop?

Maybe so ("three-cache monte"?!). Of course, being a law-abiding "low-numbers cacher," i'm fuzzy on the details. . The more assembly-line style, the better, for the power trails.

[4wheelin_fool]

It goes by percentages. Suppose 5% of geocachers engage in cheesy activity, but 30% of number cachers do, that's six times the norm and enough for observers to label numbers cachers as purveyors of cheesy activity. However the vast majority of 70% do not do that, and would consider it an unfair label. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems right to me.

[+Ma & Pa]

It goes by percentages. Suppose 5% of geocachers engage in cheesy activity, but 30% of number cachers do, that's six times the norm and enough for observers to label numbers cachers as purveyors of cheesy activity. However the vast majority of 70% do not do that, and would consider it an unfair label. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems right to me.

 

We can all invent numbers

[4wheelin_fool]

It goes by percentages. Suppose 5% of geocachers engage in cheesy activity, but 30% of number cachers do, that's six times the norm and enough for observers to label numbers cachers as purveyors of cheesy activity. However the vast majority of 70% do not do that, and would consider it an unfair label. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems right to me.

 

We can all invent numbers

 

And that's exactly what the thread is about.

Edited October 26, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Ma & Pa]

It goes by percentages. Suppose 5% of geocachers engage in cheesy activity, but 30% of number cachers do, that's six times the norm and enough for observers to label numbers cachers as purveyors of cheesy activity. However the vast majority of 70% do not do that, and would consider it an unfair label. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems right to me.

 

We can all invent numbers

 

And that's exactly what the thread is about.

 

Actually the thread has to do with swapping containers

 

Anyhow, there is no way I would believe that 30% of any population would cheat at anything. BTW I do not think that 70% would be considered a vast majority.

 

With regard to high number cachers, I know quite a few cachers with more than 10,000 finds and most are extremely honest. They did not get high numbers by cheating or even concentrating on getting numbers. They get their numbers by their love of geocaching.

 

Anyhow I just don't like people pointing fingers and shaming, especially without proof. So this is my final on this thread.

 

.

[4wheelin_fool]

It goes by percentages. Suppose 5% of geocachers engage in cheesy activity, but 30% of number cachers do, that's six times the norm and enough for observers to label numbers cachers as purveyors of cheesy activity. However the vast majority of 70% do not do that, and would consider it an unfair label. Of course I don't know the actual numbers, but it seems right to me.

 

We can all invent numbers

 

And that's exactly what the thread is about.

 

Actually the thread has to do with swapping containers

 

Anyhow, there is no way I would believe that 30% of any population would cheat at anything. BTW I do not think that 70% would be considered a vast majority.

 

With regard to high number cachers, I know quite a few cachers with more than 10,000 finds and most are extremely honest. They did not get high numbers by cheating or even concentrating on getting numbers. They get their numbers by their love of geocaching.

 

Anyhow I just don't like people pointing fingers and shaming, especially without proof. So this is my final on this thread.

 

.

 

Well, someone said that cachers who did not want container swapping need to indicate it on their page, which would indicate the percentage was quite high. I also suppose the finger pointing and shaming would be fine for some, as long as the fingers were pointed at the "Puritans", and people were shamed for their "puritanical" views.

[+CanadianRockies]

Anyhow, there is no way I would believe that 30% of any population would cheat at anything.

How about French presidents who cheat on their wives?

 

Or how about these other populations:

 

• "In a survey of 24,000 students at 70 [American] high schools, Donald McCabe (Rutgers University) found that 64 percent of students admitted to cheating on a test, 58 percent admitted to plagiarism and 95 percent said they participated in some form of cheating, whether it was on a test, plagiarism or copying homework."
   
  
• "In the last quarter of 2005, participation in tax evasion [in Greece] reached an estimated 49% of the population, while in January 2006 it fell to 41.6%."
   
  
• "Fifty-five percent of French men and 55 percent of Italian men surveyed said they had cheated [on their spouses] at least once in their life -- but only 33 percent of French women and 44 percent of Italian women said the same."
  

Edited October 27, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

Anyhow, there is no way I would believe that 30% of any population would cheat at anything.

How about French presidents who cheat on their wives?

 

Or how about these other populations:

 

• "In a survey of 24,000 students at [American] 70 high schools, Donald McCabe (Rutgers University) found that 64 percent of students admitted to cheating on a test, 58 percent admitted to plagiarism and 95 percent said they participated in some form of cheating, whether it was on a test, plagiarism or copying homework."
   
  
• "In the last quarter of 2005, participation in tax evasion [in Greece] reached an estimated 49% of the population, while in January 2006 it fell to 41.6%."
   
  
• "Fifty-five percent of French men and 55 percent of Italian men surveyed said they had cheated [on their spouses] at least once in their life -- but only 33 percent of French women and 44 percent of Italian women said the same."
  

I read Ma & Pa's comment as not believing that 30% of any population would cheat at anything that was a meaningless game with no trophies and prizes.

 

I personally find it amazing that as many as 30% of the forum regulars seem to be unable to keep from getting their knickers in a twist in a game with no trophies or prizes.

 

If you want to discuss the problems that cache swapping and throwdowns cause cache owners and other finders, regardless of the find count of the individuals who swapped caches or left throwdowns, I'd have no problem that people are bothered by this. But when the discussion inevitably turns to how high-numbers caches have no scruples and will cheat to increment their find counts by some vanishingly small percentage I have to scratch my head as how people continue to let such trivial matters cause them discomfort.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I personally find it amazing that as many as 30% of the forum regulars seem to be unable to keep from getting their knickers in a twist in a game with no trophies or prizes.

 

 

I think it's getting to the point where 90% of your posts contain the phrase "knickers in a twist".

[cezanne]

Counting every cache as found when you swap, leap, or split is plain silly. It's some kind of game but it's not geocaching!

 

Actually when swapping every container is found and a log is signed but not at GZ.

 

The ethics of geocaching include however more than being allowed to log a found it log when having signed the log of a cache (I do not consider challenge caches here).

One of the basics is also to put the container and the log sheet back at their original position. If I hide a cache, I want to find the log book I left at the place where I left

it and not several km away.