High numbers cachers--

2.1k · October 20, 2014

Hey, I flew over Yemen on Friday evening. Can I claim the caches there?

Seriously, we don't log a find if we didn't find the actual cache. Simple as that. Even if it means we only have one Find in the whole of Africa and two fresh DNFs.

10.2k · October 20, 2014

From what I understand a group of cachers, all with individual accounts, split up and each found a bunch of different caches. They all stamped the logs with a generic one size fits all signature and then everyone claims Smileys for every cache?

That can't be right? Surely.

It's almost certainly not right. It's just a slanderous statement made with no evidence in a forum where the people in question are not active and cannot defend themselves.

I have known Alamogul since 2002, and I cached with him several times during the early days. I don't have the same caching style as he does, and there are some things he does in his caching that I don't like (thowdowns and three-cache monte, for example). And I don't approve of his group having messed up a series, as described by the OP here, although from what I understand they apologized and made up.

But I have never, ever seen any evidence that he does not visit the location of every cache he logs. Such an accusation is quite serious and would require some convincing evidence in order for me to even consider it. Unless somebody presents some evidence, you should take the claim for what it is: random unfounded slander.

Point taken.

I've never previously heard of this type of behaviour and didn't realise that the people mentioned in the OP were so well known and easily identifiable. If my question offended anyone I apologise.

Given that there have been questions in these forums (in the Found It = Didn't Find it thread for example) as to whether it is correct to log a find when your friend climbed a tree to retrieve the cache, I was staggered that the possibility that splitting up should even be considered.

I'm new to the game (2012) and come from an area where a power trail is 10 caches along a railway line. The first time I heard of someone who had found 200 caches in a day I was staggered.

Anyway, I shall withdraw from this thread in order not to offend again

Cheers

Tony

I don't know how slanderous it could be, but rather libelous. Don't know how libelous it could be either, as it's not a serious accusation of derogatory behavior as the practice is very common. Leaving throwdowns as litter is more serious of a charge, but probably ranks up there with publicly accusing someone of wearing a silly looking hat, or owning a ugly cat. Since there is no "winner", the find count is not important, nor either is it relevant how someone obtained it, as there can be no cheating by definition. Although there are those that take the game much too seriously, that only indicates an unhealthy obsession on their part and should not affect the definition of what it really is, which is only a game.

What, did Toz hack your account? :laughing: I don't know that you can compare cheating at a game to wearing a silly hat. No one is going to get ticked off if you wear a silly hat. The people who play said game fairly are going to get ticked off though. There's not a very strong argument for that cheating affecting others in Geocaching though, I'll admit.

I once confronted a horrific cheater of the smartphone app Foursquare. In a bizarre recent twist, that app is no longer a "game", but that's besides the point. So I confront them, and they're all like, "Dude, it's just a game". And I'm all like "then why do you cheat at it every day for 2 years?". I never actually got an answer there. But there's a much stronger case for it affecting other players there. If you're familiar with how that used to work, several venues (stores and such) had their location moved to her apartment, because that's where all the daily check ins were coming from.

3.6k · October 20, 2014

I do get upset seeing cachers from X country coming and logging finds 100s of miles apart and boating only caches in one day that they may have actually only a found a few. And I do check most of the logsheets of my caches to see if anyone fakes a finds. Problem is many cheaters wait til the cache has been replaced and claim they found it before it went missing.

3.5k · October 20, 2014

No, I do not follow any Geocaching group on FaceBook; I do not even have a FB account. Using someone else's account I read the section on the trashing of the Memory Lane caches and came away with three observations:

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

2. The two people who did the Memory Lane caches did apologize and the CO did accept the apology, although not to the point of editing their OM cache log to explain that.

3. I disagree with the point that, just because this issue is 3 months old and has been discussed in another venue, it is not appropriate to discuss it here.

I did do the Memory Lane caches yesterday, and although most of the individual caches are pretty lame, I did really enjoy the series. (Please give me a couple days before you read my Found logs and say that I should have written better logs. All I've done so far is upload my Field Notes; I plan to go back and write proper logs for all the caches I found.)

3.6k · October 20, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Not sure what you mean by mis handling. Swapping? or what?

3.5k · October 20, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Not sure what you mean by mis handling. Swapping? or what?

Jumping out of the car, picking up the cache, dropping the container that had been taken from the previous location, jumping back in the car, stamping the log and replacing it in the container while the driver drives to the next location. Repeating, repeating, repeating.

3.6k · October 20, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Not sure what you mean by mis handling. Swapping? or what?

Jumping out of the car, picking up the cache, dropping the container that had been taken from the previous location, jumping back in the car, stamping the log and replacing it in the container while the driver drives to the next location. Repeating, repeating, repeating.

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are. If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches. It's been done before and will continue so what they did is not surprise and not mishandling.

Edited October 20, 2014 by jellis

3.5k · October 20, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Not sure what you mean by mis handling. Swapping? or what?

Jumping out of the car, picking up the cache, dropping the container that had been taken from the previous location, jumping back in the car, stamping the log and replacing it in the container while the driver drives to the next location. Repeating, repeating, repeating.

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are. If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches. It's been done before and will continue so what they did is not surprise and not mishandling.

I am not picking on them for who they are. I understand that this is an accepted method of doing PTs and GAs. OK I could have been clearer; the term "mishandling" does not apply to all the caches the group found, but it surely applies to the Memory Lane caches, as well as the other caches in the same area, and those are the ones I'm specifically referring to. Yes, there are a lot of caches in this area, but they are not a Power Trail; mostly they are small series of around 10-20 caches placed by different people. Even the Cache-A-Day series of 366 caches is not a Power Trail because they are scattered all over the county. Treating these caches as though they were a PT is definitely mishandling them.

14k · October 20, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Not sure what you mean by mis handling. Swapping? or what?

Jumping out of the car, picking up the cache, dropping the container that had been taken from the previous location, jumping back in the car, stamping the log and replacing it in the container while the driver drives to the next location. Repeating, repeating, repeating.

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are. If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches. It's been done before and will continue so what they did is not surprise and not mishandling.

If a CO wants to allow container swapping on the Power Trail or GeoArt series, that's one thing. The Memory Lane cache were neither part of a power trail nor part of a GeoArt series. That is the crux of the issue.

5.3k · October 20, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Where did you hear this? What evidence do you have to support this accusation? It is a pretty serious one to be making; as I said, my experience with these cachers is that they all visit each cache they log. If they didn't, then it would certainly call their caching ethic into question.

Of course, since you have admitted to spreading false information from rumors in the past, I wouldn't take anything you say very seriously.

3.6k · October 20, 2014

Don't think that was the topic either. It was about the Memory Lane caches
I think the topic is broader than just the Memory Lane caches. I think the topic includes (per the OP) "this behavior", which I take to mean the practice of vandalizing caches by inflicting the three cache monte on cache owners who do not consent to having their caches/logs swapped indiscriminately.

Yeah, it is about the memory lane caches, which is only like an 8 or 10 cache series with clues to a final. Which the owner did place in a power trail fashion, in an area filled with power trails.

One cannot deny that container swapping is a horrifically lame practice. And it can cause issues, and did in this case.

Like what was mentioned above they admitted and apologized for the mistake of the Memory Lane caches for a PT. So how long are you going to be dragging this up?

10.2k · October 20, 2014

Don't think that was the topic either. It was about the Memory Lane caches
I think the topic is broader than just the Memory Lane caches. I think the topic includes (per the OP) "this behavior", which I take to mean the practice of vandalizing caches by inflicting the three cache monte on cache owners who do not consent to having their caches/logs swapped indiscriminately.

Yeah, it is about the memory lane caches, which is only like an 8 or 10 cache series with clues to a final. Which the owner did place in a power trail fashion, in an area filled with power trails.

One cannot deny that container swapping is a horrifically lame practice. And it can cause issues, and did in this case.

Like what was mentioned above they admitted and apologized for the mistake of the Memory Lane caches for a PT. So how long are you going to be dragging this up?

You sure you're quoting the right person? I'm one of the biggest defenders of the group. Well, at least as far as the allegation they all split up and logged the caches, I'm still not down with swapping.

8k · October 20, 2014

One cannot deny that container swapping is a horrifically lame practice. And it can cause issues, and did in this case.

Then the point should not be to tie swapping with numbers but with the issues it can cause for cache owners and other cachers. If caches are "generic" then swapping one generic cache with another has no ill effects. But not all caches are generic. The issue is how these generic cachers determine which caches can be swapped and which can't be. What needs to be done to educate cachers that is might not be a good idea to treat all caches as generic and then apologize when it turns out some were not?

6.8k · October 20, 2014

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are. If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches. It's been done before and will continue so what they did is not surprise and not mishandling.

Actually, I do not think that cache owner should need to state explicitly that they do not wish that the containers are swapped. I rather expect that those for whom this is ok should mention it explicitly.

I think cache finders should be able to check which cache they found and I would not want my signature to be in the log book of a cache I have not found.

I'm even more surprised that you include GeoArt as well without any additional restrictions (such as that the GeoArt is powertrail-like etc).

3.6k · October 20, 2014

Sorry Mr Yuck missed by one.

Some treat GeoArt like PTs though they are different as the can't really be done as fast being they are not on roads. But some still try like the Eagle GeoArt

So how about those Broad-tailed Hummers?

14k · October 20, 2014

Don't think that was the topic either. It was about the Memory Lane caches
I think the topic is broader than just the Memory Lane caches. I think the topic includes (per the OP) "this behavior", which I take to mean the practice of vandalizing caches by inflicting the three cache monte on cache owners who do not consent to having their caches/logs swapped indiscriminately.

Yeah, it is about the memory lane caches, which is only like an 8 or 10 cache series with clues to a final. Which the owner did place in a power trail fashion, in an area filled with power trails.

One cannot deny that container swapping is a horrifically lame practice. And it can cause issues, and did in this case.

Like what was mentioned above they admitted and apologized for the mistake of the Memory Lane caches for a PT. So how long are you going to be dragging this up?

As long as you keep on excusing the behavior of that treated the Memory Lane caches as just another power trail. I don't know what game they were playing but it has diverged so much from the game I've been playing for seven years I don't know what to call it.

3.6k · October 20, 2014

As mentioned above they thought it was a PT because it was close to others. It was a mistake only

2.7k · October 20, 2014

Paraphrasing someone's sig line, "It takes years to log over 106k finds, but only one accusation of team logging to bring that number into question."

As jellis stated earlier, in one of her posts defending this group, some of the group went after Mingo, while others were in another part of Kansas, therefore credence is added to the notion of more than one vehicle being involved (despite her saying the extra vehicles would be cost prohibitive).

Stealing a cache container from one location and placing it at another location goes against the usually acceptable practices of Geocaching.

10.2k · October 20, 2014

One cannot deny that container swapping is a horrifically lame practice. And it can cause issues, and did in this case.

Then the point should not be to tie swapping with numbers but with the issues it can cause for cache owners and other cachers. If caches are "generic" then swapping one generic cache with another has no ill effects. But not all caches are generic. The issue is how these generic cachers determine which caches can be swapped and which can't be. What needs to be done to educate cachers that is might not be a good idea to treat all caches as generic and then apologize when it turns out some were not?

Yes! Oh, I don't know about education, this was an honest mistake, and the series appears to have been hidden in a power trail fashion, in an area with many power trails. Not that I'm saying the owner was asking for it, or anything.

October 20, 2014

Stealing a cache container from one location and placing it at another location goes against the usually acceptable practices of Geocaching.

Yeah! Stealing! I read through this entire thread before I finally saw that word used. Taking somebody's cache and swapping it with one in another location without permission is stealing. While this may be an acceptable practice for powertrails, it's not geocaching if you ask me. It's something else.

No CO should ever have to explicitly describe on their cache page that they don't want cachers swapping their containers, regardless of how close the nearby powertrail is. Find cache, sign log, replace as found. That's the bare minimum. When you steal a cache and replace it with a different one, you're no longer replacing the cache as you've found it.

Now whether or not this group split up is debatable and that's a whole different problem entirely (you know, that whole "find cache, sign log" thing comes into play). I truly think though, that this is not about that one particular group more than it is about that entire sect of cachers who will try to find time saving measures in any form, just so they can log more smilies. I'm a victim of this myself as I've had to delete many logs and make many trips to verify finds on a difficult cache that I own that's nearby a PT. Yeah, it hasn't been a victim of swapping, but it's victim to many a fake find. It's irritating and bothersome but I don't want to see another pill bottle get stuffed into the location as it's an extremely picturesque area, hence why I placed a cache there.

Powertrails are designed only for numbers....not for a unique or inspired location, just numbers and it's really sad when you see caches that have nothing to do with a powertrail, get treated as such just because it's nearby or in the same area.

3.5k · October 20, 2014

The area does not have "many power trails." The area has many caches, most of which are small (10-20 caches) series, put out by maybe a half dozen individual cachers, none of whom (I'm making an assumption here) would like to have their caches mixed up with each others'. Even if the offenders decide to apologize--what, saying "I'm sorry" excuses rampant bad behavior?

5.3k · October 20, 2014

Even if the offenders decide to apologize--what, saying "I'm sorry" excuses rampant bad behavior?

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering.

6.8k · October 20, 2014

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering.

What somehow disturbs me is that apparently many cachers believe that swapping cache containers is ok and only think that "caching in parallel" is not ok while for me both practices are absolute no-goes. I do not care about the specific incident which motivated this thread and I

do not know the involved cachers. I'm concerned about the general attitude towards swapping caches containers and that cache owners need to state explicitly that they do not wish that their caches are treated with this type of approach.

8k · October 20, 2014

Even if the offenders decide to apologize--what, saying "I'm sorry" excuses rampant bad behavior?

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering.

I'm not sure NanCycle is refering to splitting up and claiming caches found by only part of the group as "rampant bad behavior". She seems to be refering more to the treating of individual caches or several small series as being part of one powertrail and moving caches from one location to another to speed up their find rate.

When the first powertrails were put out, I thought it was cute that people came up with clever ways to reduce the time spent at each cache and use the time traveling from cache to cache to handle "mundane" tasks like signing logs. At the time people using the powertrails to set personal records for the number caches found in a day. Swapping containers allow the rate of finds to be bumped up.

I'm sure the people on this team have all sorts of records for number of caches found in a day or the like. What I don't get is why continue with these tactics on a trip that perhaps allowed for a high find count due to the density of caches, but where they certainly weren't going to set any records. Why not slow down and show some consideration for the many cache owners who hid something not intended to be generic - where throwdowns and cache shifting would not be appreciated. It wasn't a simple mistake that should be waved aside with an apology but an arrogant assumption that tactics that may be appropriate on a real powertrail are appropriate anywhere there are a lot of caches.

2.7k · October 20, 2014

Even if the offenders decide to apologize--what, saying "I'm sorry" excuses rampant bad behavior?

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering.

What is "caching in parallel"? I have not heard this term until now. Please explain what this means.

10.2k · October 21, 2014

Even if the offenders decide to apologize--what, saying "I'm sorry" excuses rampant bad behavior?

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering.

What is "caching in parallel"? I have not heard this term until now. Please explain what this means.

I've never heard it before either, and it may have just been a term made up for this thread. But I'm quite certain it references calling yourself a "team", and logging finds for caches you were not physically present for. Which I wouldn't condone in a million years, although I don't think it happened here.

10.1k · October 21, 2014

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are. If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches. It's been done before and will continue so what they did is not surprise and not mishandling.

Actually, I do not think that cache owner should need to state explicitly that they do not wish that the containers are swapped. I rather expect that those for whom this is ok should mention it explicitly.

I think cache finders should be able to check which cache they found and I would not want my signature to be in the log book of a cache I have not found.

I'm even more surprised that you include GeoArt as well without any additional restrictions (such as that the GeoArt is powertrail-like etc).

I agree! Aberrant behavior is becoming normal behavior?!? That is really sad. If anyone treated my Op Art that way, I'd delete the finds, and archive the series! One should not have to post that bizarre behavior is not permitted!

7.7k · October 21, 2014

In post 104, NanCycle again seems to suggest ("the two people who did the Memory Lane caches") that the cachers did split up and not everyone found all the caches, without offering proof.

If the group has apologized to the CO about their mishandling of the Memory Lane caches, and the CO has accepted their apologies, is there any point in our dwelling on that particular issue? I think no one here disagrees that it is unacceptable.

Now, if you want to discuss power trails, swapping cache containers on a power trail, replacing lost containers on a power trail, and leapfrogging on a power trail, that's a different matter.

10.2k · October 21, 2014

In post 104, NanCycle again seems to suggest ("the two people who did the Memory Lane caches") that the cachers did split up and not everyone found all the caches, without offering proof.

If the group has apologized to the CO about their mishandling of the Memory Lane caches, and the CO has accepted their apologies, is there any point in our dwelling on that particular issue? I think no one here disagrees that it is unacceptable.

Now, if you want to discuss power trails, swapping cache containers on a power trail, replacing lost containers on a power trail, and leapfrogging on a power trail, that's a different matter.

New thread? Of course that didn't work for the 25 page "intro app users are killing the hobby" thread. Which I predict will be bumped any day by some newbie who isn't, and never has, used the intro app, being all offended we're talking about them.

4.5k · October 21, 2014

In post 104, NanCycle again seems to suggest ("the two people who did the Memory Lane caches") that the cachers did split up and not everyone found all the caches, without offering proof.

If the group has apologized to the CO about their mishandling of the Memory Lane caches, and the CO has accepted their apologies, is there any point in our dwelling on that particular issue? I think no one here disagrees that it is unacceptable.

Now, if you want to discuss power trails, swapping cache containers on a power trail, replacing lost containers on a power trail, and leapfrogging on a power trail, that's a different matter.

It's a different matter and most definitely, a different game. It's not geocaching. As cezanne has stated, it concerns me that more and more people are doing these things. Imo, Groundspeak should start up another site for people who want to play this other game.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

In post 104, NanCycle again seems to suggest ("the two people who did the Memory Lane caches") that the cachers did split up and not everyone found all the caches, without offering proof.

If the group has apologized to the CO about their mishandling of the Memory Lane caches, and the CO has accepted their apologies, is there any point in our dwelling on that particular issue? I think no one here disagrees that it is unacceptable.

Now, if you want to discuss power trails, swapping cache containers on a power trail, replacing lost containers on a power trail, and leapfrogging on a power trail, that's a different matter.

It's a different matter and most definitely, a different game. It's not geocaching. As cezanne has stated, it concerns me that more and more people are doing these things. Imo, Groundspeak should start up another site for people who want to play this other game.

I bet if you ask the COs of the ET Hwy and some of the other +1000 PT or GeoArts if they mind cache swapping or replacing cache containers, I am sure they will not mind. If you owned +1000 caches you wouldn't want to constantly go out and have to replace them and since all the caches are the same they are not going to care about swapping either since they were stamped/signed by the finders. If they had less then 100 I can see how someone may mind or if they had clues to a final.

1.3k · October 21, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Where did you hear this? What evidence do you have to support this accusation? It is a pretty serious one to be making; as I said, my experience with these cachers is that they all visit each cache they log. If they didn't, then it would certainly call their caching ethic into question.

I would have thought that logging finds on caches they didn't actually find would call their caching ethics into question but apparently that's not the case in todays geocaching world.

I bet if you ask the COs of the ET Hwy and some of the other +1000 PT or GeoArts if they mind cache swapping or replacing cache containers, I am sure they will not mind.

I'm not sure what this has to do with throwdowns or cache swapping since powertrails don't seem to have to abide by the normal practices of geocaching. If someone places a megatrail and Groundspeak looks the other way, the people who cache those trails can do whatever they want in terms of finding/logging caches as far as I'm concerned. As long as they understand those "rules" only apply to powertrails. Leave those silly rules out of geocaching, please.

6.1k · October 21, 2014

I don't know how slanderous it could be, but rather libelous. Don't know how libelous it could be either, as it's not a serious accusation of derogatory behavior as the practice is very common. Leaving throwdowns as litter is more serious of a charge, but probably ranks up there with publicly accusing someone of wearing a silly looking hat, or owning a ugly cat. Since there is no "winner", the find count is not important, nor either is it relevant how someone obtained it, as there can be no cheating by definition. Although there are those that take the game much too seriously, that only indicates an unhealthy obsession on their part and should not affect the definition of what it really is, which is only a game.

What, did Toz hack your account? I don't know that you can compare cheating at a game to wearing a silly hat. No one is going to get ticked off if you wear a silly hat. The people who play said game fairly are going to get ticked off though. There's not a very strong argument for that cheating affecting others in Geocaching though, I'll admit.

I once confronted a horrific cheater of the smartphone app Foursquare. In a bizarre recent twist, that app is no longer a "game", but that's besides the point. So I confront them, and they're all like, "Dude, it's just a game". And I'm all like "then why do you cheat at it every day for 2 years?". I never actually got an answer there. But there's a much stronger case for it affecting other players there. If you're familiar with how that used to work, several venues (stores and such) had their location moved to her apartment, because that's where all the daily check ins were coming from.

I don't know if you can call it cheating. Since there is no winner, and the numbers don't mean too much of anything there is no way anyone can cheat. Calling it cheating is what fuels people to do it. Its the Charlie Sheen psychology of believing that they are winning somehow with a score. It could be described as asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy, but cheating? No. The numbers mean nothing.

Now if the people that are practicing this asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior start to do other things that annoy cache owners, there is the problem. Not with the asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior in itself, but the product of it. Many people practice the asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior without causing any problems whatsoever, and are still considered upstanding members in the community.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Where did you hear this? What evidence do you have to support this accusation? It is a pretty serious one to be making; as I said, my experience with these cachers is that they all visit each cache they log. If they didn't, then it would certainly call their caching ethic into question.

I would have thought that logging finds on caches they didn't actually find would call their caching ethics into question but apparently that's not the case in todays geocaching world.

I bet if you ask the COs of the ET Hwy and some of the other +1000 PT or GeoArts if they mind cache swapping or replacing cache containers, I am sure they will not mind.

I'm not sure what this has to do with throwdowns or cache swapping since powertrails don't seem to have to abide by the normal practices of geocaching. If someone places a megatrail and Groundspeak looks the other way, the people who cache those trails can do whatever they want in terms of finding/logging caches as far as I'm concerned. As long as they understand those "rules" only apply to powertrails. Leave those silly rules out of geocaching, please.

And thats what I am trying to say but the topic is going back and forth between the Memory lane caches which I see the topic is as old and done since it was a mistake and not intentional, to Power Trails and GeoArt. There is no throw downs in Power Trails if the Cache owner and GC don't care about replacing and swapping, since this is a differnet type of caching.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Where did you hear this? What evidence do you have to support this accusation? It is a pretty serious one to be making; as I said, my experience with these cachers is that they all visit each cache they log. If they didn't, then it would certainly call their caching ethic into question.

I would have thought that logging finds on caches they didn't actually find would call their caching ethics into question but apparently that's not the case in todays geocaching world.

And I have pointed out others who have questionable actions in logging and finding but seems it goes right back to the same cachers mentioned here like if they are the only ones doing it.

Edited October 21, 2014 by jellis

8k · October 21, 2014

Now if the people that are practicing this asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior start to do other things that annoy cache owners, there is the problem. Not with the asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior in itself, but the product of it. Many people practice the asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior without causing any problems whatsoever, and are still considered upstanding members in the community.

Apparently what annoys people more than any product of the asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior is that the "numbers" are wrong. No one gives a hoot about some inconvenience to the cache owner or other cachers who are expecting to find the not-so-generic geocache, it's all about the numbers. <_<

7.7k · October 21, 2014

No one gives a hoot about some inconvenience to the cache owner or other cachers who are expecting to find the not-so-generic geocache, it's all about the numbers.

Which is clearly not the case here, since :

1) the cachers responsible clearly cared they made a mistake

2) the participants in this thread clearly thinks that it is not appropriate to treat all caches as generic power trail caches

Personally, I give it a hoot and a half.

1.4k · October 21, 2014

I have gotten a fear of heights and having someone throw down the logsheet so I can sign is not a problem for me. Having someone solo looking up at a cache in a tree, say they saw it and log it as a find would be problem, but then it is up to the CO. There are many tree caches I can't log because I didn't climb the tree.

I can think of one time we were at a tree climb caching in a group. A few of us were climbing up in the tree. Jellis was on the ground. We couldn't find it for anything. Jellis was the one who finally spotted it after a long time. It made us all be able to sign and log the find. Was she any less part of the group effort to get the cache. I don't think so. If she was not there we might not have found it. Only one of us climbed to the actual spot and handed the cache down for the rest of us to sign. It would have been silly for all of us to wait for the original person to climb down and the rest of us to take our turns. In a group effort like that I think that is the benefit of having the right cachers with you. Obviously if you went there alone and couldn't sign it then it wouldn't count as a find but if you all work together to get it and sign it I think it is a legit find.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

I have gotten a fear of heights and having someone throw down the logsheet so I can sign is not a problem for me. Having someone solo looking up at a cache in a tree, say they saw it and log it as a find would be problem, but then it is up to the CO. There are many tree caches I can't log because I didn't climb the tree.

I can think of one time we were at a tree climb caching in a group. A few of us were climbing up in the tree. Jellis was on the ground. We couldn't find it for anything. Jellis was the one who finally spotted it after a long time. It made us all be able to sign and log the find. Was she any less part of the group effort to get the cache. I don't think so. If she was not there we might not have found it. Only one of us climbed to the actual spot and handed the cache down for the rest of us to sign. It would have been silly for all of us to wait for the original person to climb down and the rest of us to take our turns. In a group effort like that I think that is the benefit of having the right cachers with you. Obviously if you went there alone and couldn't sign it then it wouldn't count as a find but if you all work together to get it and sign it I think it is a legit find.

Speaking of that there is a tree I need someone to climb (hint hint hint) Only problem is you found it already.

5.3k · October 21, 2014

1. The rumor I heard about the group using 8 cars was untrue. Apparently they used 4 cars, each with one person to do the driving and one person to do the cache (mis)handling.

Where did you hear this? What evidence do you have to support this accusation? It is a pretty serious one to be making; as I said, my experience with these cachers is that they all visit each cache they log. If they didn't, then it would certainly call their caching ethic into question.

I would have thought that logging finds on caches they didn't actually find would call their caching ethics into question but apparently that's not the case in todays geocaching world.

My view of the behaviors discussed in this thread:

Three-Cache Monte: unacceptable without express permission of the CO.
Throwdowns: unacceptable without express permission of the CO.
Parallel Caching: always unacceptable.
Unsubstantiated Accusations of any of the above: always unacceptable.

The last one (unsubstantiated accusations) is as unethical as the others.

15.4k · October 21, 2014

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are.

If the cache owner accepts the practice of container swapping, and if Groundspeak accepts the practice of container swapping (as evidenced by the ongoing listing of such caches), then I suppose it isn't really "mishandling" the caches. IMHO, it isn't geocaching. And it may be "asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior". But it isn't "mishandling", because the caches are being handled just as the owner intended.

But when the cache owner does not accept the practice, then it is theft/vandalism. That appears to have happened to the Memory Lane series of caches. It has happened to other cache series as well. As long as the practice continues to be accepted on some numbers run trails, with no clear indication in the listing (such as an attribute, or even a new type) as to whether or not container swapping is accepted by any given cache owner for any given cache, the problem of such theft/vandalism will continue.

If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches.

No. This is exactly backwards. A cache owner shouldn't need to do ANYTHING to indicate that the normal rules and expectations of geocaching (e.g., "return the geocache to its original location") apply to his/her caches.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

Then you should be naming a majority of cachers who do Power Trails and GeoArts that also do it and did that GeoArt not just them because who they are.
If the cache owner accepts the practice of container swapping, and if Groundspeak accepts the practice of container swapping (as evidenced by the ongoing listing of such caches), then I suppose it isn't really "mishandling" the caches. IMHO, it isn't geocaching. And it may be "asinine, stupid, silly, and cheesy behavior". But it isn't "mishandling", because the caches are being handled just as the owner intended.

But when the cache owner does not accept the practice, then it is theft/vandalism. That appears to have happened to the Memory Lane series of caches. It has happened to other cache series as well. As long as the practice continues to be accepted on some numbers run trails, with no clear indication in the listing (such as an attribute, or even a new type) as to whether or not container swapping is accepted by any given cache owner for any given cache, the problem of such theft/vandalism will continue.

If the CO of the the PTs and GeoArt doesn't want cachers doing that then they should say it on their caches.
No. This is exactly backwards. A cache owner shouldn't need to do ANYTHING to indicate that the normal rules and expectations of geocaching (e.g., "return the geocache to its original location") apply to his/her caches.

Yes it was mishandled but it was a mistake, apologized and corrected, not intentional.

Return to geocaching as it once was, I don't think so. We won't get Virtuals or Webcams back, we may never go to Space Station and PT and GeoArts are here to stay since GC doesn't want to stop them or they would have.

6.8k · October 21, 2014

If the group has apologized to the CO about their mishandling of the Memory Lane caches, and the CO has accepted their apologies, is there any point in our dwelling on that particular issue? I think no one here disagrees that it is unacceptable.

There are cachers here who argue that swapping containers is ok for powertrail and at least some forms of GeoArt also in the case that the cache description does not mention that the owner is fine with this approach.

The group has apologized, but similar incidents will happen again as long as people believe that container swapping is ok for certain cache types as powercachers hardly read cache listings and so could always make such mistakes.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

Thing is I doubt too many Power Cachers read the forums so all this discussion is not going to help stop it. Time to move on to a new topic or you can just keep rehashing everything over again.

6.8k · October 21, 2014

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.

15.4k · October 21, 2014

Thing is I doubt too many Power Cachers read the forums so all this discussion is not going to help stop it. Time to move on to a new topic or you can just keep rehashing everything over again.

Or maybe we could focus the discussion on responses that could stop the vandalism/theft by "power cachers" who swap containers indiscriminately.

I hear that public shaming is back in fashion.

3.6k · October 21, 2014

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

14k · October 21, 2014

Even if the offenders decide to apologize--what, saying "I'm sorry" excuses rampant bad behavior?

Have you posted your evidence about the "caching in parallel" accusation? I can't find it. Until then I would hope that everyone here is be treating your input as potentially false rumor-mongering.

What is "caching in parallel"? I have not heard this term until now. Please explain what this means.

I don't know if there is an official name for the practice. I called it "team splitting". Basically, create an adhoc "team", split up into different vehicles and find caches in different areas, every logs finds on all caches on all parts of the team. So, in other words, you can drive a vehicle while people in other vehicles driving different roads get out and find caches and you can log their caches as well. Some people call that geocaching. I call it driving a vehicle.

6.8k · October 21, 2014

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

Edited October 21, 2014 by cezanne

1.3k · October 21, 2014

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

Not to mention the fact that those powertrail cachers pulled the same shenanigans when doing non-powertrail caches. They can call it a mistake but they knew what they were doing. I have a hard time believing that one wouldn't realize they were doing a cache that wasn't part of the PT or GeoArt trails. Of course, noone is saying it's acceptable...but the lines sure seem to get blurred when those cachers are out in the field, logging caches.

High numbers cachers--

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation