High numbers cachers--

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

Wait a minute. Isn't that what happened here?

[+L0ne.R]

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?

 

 

[+ras_oscar]

Leapfrog is skipping every other cache while another cacher does the same. Swapping is exchanging one cache container for a different one

 

Both are techniques designed to increase the caching pace. Swapping means I have a cache that I already signed. I walk up to the current location, pick up the cache, replace it with the one I already signed, get back in the car and sign it while the driver navigates me to the next cache. Repeat ad infinitum. Usually done on a power trail consisting of repetitive caches in essentially the spame spot and the same container. As described above, leapfroggintg means 2 teams split up and each do half the caches, signing each cache for all members of both teams. Both techniques can be used together.

[+Traditional Bill]

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.

 

First off, I get the group effort, that's totally okay. I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?

[+Mudfrog]

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.

 

This is exactly my point! Basic geocaching etiquette is to search for the cache, sign the log, and put the cache back like you found it. People who take the cache and move it are not following this basic premise. People who leapfrog aren't finding but half of the containers. People who split up are definitely not finding all the caches their "team" says they did. Doesn't matter if a container owner says it ok or not, a person is not geocaching if he's doing any of these things.

 

I think it would be a great idea to put power trails on their own website. Those who like doing them could then do whatever they wanted without having to endure the eyerolling of geocachers.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+Traditional Bill]

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.

 

Furthermore, I noticed the group in question found the final for the Memory Lane series. I find it extremely hard to believe that they didn't realize that this wasn't part of the powertrail. Surely they would've noticed that they were swapping one of the series caches with another....especially if they had taken down the clue, which they obviously did in order to find the final.

[+humboldt flier]

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.

 

First off, I get the group effort, that's totally okay. I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?

 

"I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?"

 

SILLY CACHERS ... TREES ARE FOR HUGGING.

[+Traditional Bill]

I think it would be a great idea to put power trails on their own website. Those who like doing them could then do whatever they wanted without having to endure the eyerolling of geocachers.

 

While I think that's a fantastic idea, I don't think powercachers would be very happy about that.If it's treated the same way virtuals/webcams were with Waymarking, then moving them to another site would likely take away the "+1" aspect on the actual geocaching site and would no longer combine with geocaching finds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the only reason powertrails exist?

 

*edited for spelling error

Edited October 21, 2014 by Traditional Bill

[team tisri]

But treat it as a cautionary tale. No need to go further than that.

You have more finds than me, which means I don't trust you

 

You haven't been here as long as I have, which means you don't know what you're talking about

[+Chrysalides]

But treat it as a cautionary tale. No need to go further than that.

You have more finds than me, which means I don't trust you

 

You haven't been here as long as I have, which means you don't know what you're talking about

Of course not! Why would anyone assume otherwise?

[+tozainamboku]

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.

The problem is that some are insisting that "power caching" is what needs shaming.

 

There is no shame is enjoying going on a road trip with a group of friends and trying to find as many caches as possible. There is no shame in using certain tatics that some 'puritans' object to on certain series where cache owners accept these tatics. The problem is when those tatics cause additonal maintenace issues for cache owners or for cachers trying to enjoy a non-generic caching experience and a non-generic cache has been replaced or swapped with a generic cache. The issue should not be to criticize people because they do "power caching" or "speed caching", but to convince people that treating all caches as generic to justify these techniques results in in real problems. Clearly, the group in this case was willing to apologize that they didn't realize the caches weren't generic. That's a start. Now how to get groups like this to change their approach and rather than assuming caches are generic, assume that that cache are not generic and only use the tatics for caches they are certain are part of a series where the cache owner allows them.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

The problem is that some are insisting that "power caching" is what needs shaming.

 

There is no shame is enjoying going on a road trip with a group of friends and trying to find as many caches as possible. There is no shame in using certain tatics that some 'puritans' object to on certain series where cache owners accept these tatics. The problem is when those tatics cause additonal maintenace issues for cache owners or for cachers trying to enjoy a non-generic caching experience and a non-generic cache has been replaced or swapped with a generic cache. The issue should not be to criticize people because they do "power caching" or "speed caching", but to convince people that treating all caches as generic to justify these techniques results in in real problems. Clearly, the group in this case was willing to apologize that they didn't realize the caches weren't generic. That's a start. Now how to get groups like this to change their approach and rather than assuming caches are generic, assume that that cache are not generic and only use the tatics for caches they are certain are part of a series where the cache owner allows them.

 

The problem is that there are no generic caches. The logsheet is supposed to indicate the finders of the cache, not just the last finder. Swapping them around to save an additional 15 seconds per cache is unacceptable, but seemingly becoming common. I know some people are desperate to impress others with high numbers, and I feel sorry for them.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

The problem is that some are insisting that "power caching" is what needs shaming.

 

There is no shame is enjoying going on a road trip with a group of friends and trying to find as many caches as possible. There is no shame in using certain tatics that some 'puritans' object to on certain series where cache owners accept these tatics. The problem is when those tatics cause additonal maintenace issues for cache owners or for cachers trying to enjoy a non-generic caching experience and a non-generic cache has been replaced or swapped with a generic cache. The issue should not be to criticize people because they do "power caching" or "speed caching", but to convince people that treating all caches as generic to justify these techniques results in in real problems. Clearly, the group in this case was willing to apologize that they didn't realize the caches weren't generic. That's a start. Now how to get groups like this to change their approach and rather than assuming caches are generic, assume that that cache are not generic and only use the tatics for caches they are certain are part of a series where the cache owner allows them.

 

The problem is that there are no generic caches. The logsheet is supposed to indicate the finders of the cache, not just the last finder. Swapping them around to save an additional 15 seconds per cache is unacceptable, but seemingly becoming common. I know some people are desperate to impress others with high numbers, and I feel sorry for them.

As I do for people who believe the names on the logsheet are magical.

 

While I enjoy looking at the names of people who have signed the log before me at a non-generic cache, I can't imagine doing do for each cache on a powertrail. And if the logs got switched so that the names no longer accurately reflect who found the cache at this location, I certainly wouldn't get my knickers in a twist over it.

[knowschad]

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.

 

Why would that be silly?

[+Touchstone]

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.

 

Around my area, queuing up is a tradition

 

[+WarNinjas]

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.

 

First off, I get the group effort, that's totally okay. I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?

 

"I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?"

 

SILLY CACHERS ... TREES ARE FOR HUGGING.

My bad. I worded that wrong. In some cases we would do that and I would actually prefer to do it that way. We have out a few tree climbing caches ourselves. I was more talking about on this one trip. We had a group of us out on a trip far away with a goal of a bunch of caches in that area we wanted to find. We didn't even get to all the ones we wanted to do that day. That is why I was thinking it would not have been good for us to do. Even thought we probably should have. If it was one close to home we all were just meeting up to do then YES for sure I would want anyone that was able to do so to go for it! That is part of the fun. Most of us were already up in the tree at this one.

[+WarNinjas]

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.

Oh I see. That shouldn't be to big of a deal as log as we include Psychotic Jester. I felt bad because the day I made the climb our intention was to call and have him meet us there and we forgot. That is the craziest tree I think I have ever climbed. I think part of the problem was we had already hiked a huge mountain before we got there that made it even harder. One day when I am off and at home and need to find a cache for the streak near home I can make that area the one for the day and climb that tree again.

[+niraD]

For the record, my original "public shaming" comment was made partially in jest. But only partially.

 

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.

The problem is that some are insisting that "power caching" is what needs shaming.

There could be different levels of shaming.

 

Armchair logging is certainly deserving of shame. People are claiming to have done something (found a cache, visited a virtual cache site, attended an event, whatever) that they never did. And IMHO, leapfrogging, team splitting, and other divide-and-conquer "optimizations" for numbers runs fit this category.

 

And doing something other than geocaching while claiming to have gone geocaching is deserving of shame. Logging a geocaching find because you solved the Times crossword puzzle would fall into this category. Logging a find because you played a round of golf nearby would too. And IMHO, the three cache monte falls into this category as well.

 

Of course, stealing/vandalizing caches is worse than either of these, and is certainly deserving of even more shame.

[+Traditional Bill]

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.

 

First off, I get the group effort, that's totally okay. I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?

 

"I have no problem when a group of cachers does my tree climbing caches and only one person climbs so long as everyone signs the log. I'm curious though, why would it have been "silly" for everyone to climb to the cache? If the folks in the group are willing, and the proper gear is in place with somebody who knows how to use it, why not give them that experience? I don't think letting everybody take a turn is silly at all. Maybe time consuming, but if you have the ability for everybody to experience the cache as intended then why wouldn't you?"

 

SILLY CACHERS ... TREES ARE FOR HUGGING.

My bad. I worded that wrong. In some cases we would do that and I would actually prefer to do it that way. We have out a few tree climbing caches ourselves. I was more talking about on this one trip. We had a group of us out on a trip far away with a goal of a bunch of caches in that area we wanted to find. We didn't even get to all the ones we wanted to do that day. That is why I was thinking it would not have been good for us to do. Even thought we probably should have. If it was one close to home we all were just meeting up to do then YES for sure I would want anyone that was able to do so to go for it! That is part of the fun. Most of us were already up in the tree at this one.

 

Now that's the spirit.

[4wheelin_fool]

The problem is that there are no generic caches. The logsheet is supposed to indicate the finders of the cache, not just the last finder. Swapping them around to save an additional 15 seconds per cache is unacceptable, but seemingly becoming common. I know some people are desperate to impress others with high numbers, and I feel sorry for them.

As I do for people who believe the names on the logsheet are magical.

 

While I enjoy looking at the names of people who have signed the log before me at a non-generic cache, I can't imagine doing do for each cache on a powertrail. And if the logs got switched so that the names no longer accurately reflect who found the cache at this location, I certainly wouldn't get my knickers in a twist over it.

 

I don't think that anyone believes the names are magical, and most people doing a powertrail don't really look at them. But some people do.

 

 

Cacher XYZ decides that he's not going to bother with the switching containers, leapfrogging and other nonsense. Instead he just couch potato logs the entire series, and back dates it a few months. Then he brags about it at an event. CacherABC hears about it and gets irate. Yes CacherABC went out with 10 other people and split up, and only visited 10 percent of the locations, but he was there! CacherDEF finds out and gets mad also. He switched out all of the containers and added several throwdowns. Then cacher GHI gets wind of it and flies into a rage, why they leapfrogged, switched containers, and simply stuffed every hide with a new logsheet with their names preprinted, tossing out the old ones. But they were all there, sort of. Now what do you think these "cheaters" can do about the couch potato logging, as they ironically destroyed the evidence themselves?

Edited October 22, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+L0ne.R]

The problem is that there are no generic caches. The logsheet is supposed to indicate the finders of the cache, not just the last finder. Swapping them around to save an additional 15 seconds per cache is unacceptable, but seemingly becoming common. I know some people are desperate to impress others with high numbers, and I feel sorry for them.

As I do for people who believe the names on the logsheet are magical.

 

While I enjoy looking at the names of people who have signed the log before me at a non-generic cache, I can't imagine doing do for each cache on a powertrail. And if the logs got switched so that the names no longer accurately reflect who found the cache at this location, I certainly wouldn't get my knickers in a twist over it.

 

I don't think that anyone believes the names are magical, and most people doing a powertrail don't really look at them. But some people do.

 

 

Cacher XYZ decides that he's not going to bother with the switching containers, leapfrogging and other nonsense. Instead he just couch potato logs the entire series, and back dates it a few months. Then he brags about it at an event. CacherABC hears about it and gets irate. Yes CacherABC went out with 10 other people and split up, and only visited 10 percent of the locations, but he was there! CacherDEF finds out and gets mad also. He switched out all of the containers and added several throwdowns. Then cacher GHI gets wind of it and flies into a rage, why they leapfrogged, switched containers, and simply stuffed every hide with a new logsheet with their names preprinted, tossing out the old ones. But they were all there, sort of. Now what do you think these "cheaters" can do about the couch potato logging, as they ironically destroyed the evidence themselves?

 

Love it! Summarizes the craziness of power trails and their special rules.

[+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>

 

[+tozainamboku]

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>

 

Mustn't mess with the magical names in the logs, or what will the puritans use as the scarlet letter to identify (and publicly shame) the sinners.

Edited October 22, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+TriciaG]

Mustn't mess with the magical names in the logs, or what will the puritans use as the scarlet letter to identify (and publicly shame) the sinners.

I'm confused. If names in the logs aren't important, why have them at all? If they are important, why mock those that think they're important?

[+dprovan]

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

Everyone involved can pity everyone else for mistakenly thinking there's some reason to waste time logging caches they didn't visit. I have no idea why they'd have any interest in doing anything beyond that.

[+jellis]

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.

Oh I see. That shouldn't be to big of a deal as log as we include Psychotic Jester. I felt bad because the day I made the climb our intention was to call and have him meet us there and we forgot. That is the craziest tree I think I have ever climbed. I think part of the problem was we had already hiked a huge mountain before we got there that made it even harder. One day when I am off and at home and need to find a cache for the streak near home I can make that area the one for the day and climb that tree again.

Are we talking about the same tree? Not the one in Marin. The one I'm talking about we discussed at the event on Treasure Island.

[+WarNinjas]

I know what one you are talking about. The impossible to climb one!

[+jellis]

Yes to the Monkey who climbed so easily.

The one named after a chess piece.

Edited October 23, 2014 by jellis

[4wheelin_fool]

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>

 

Mustn't mess with the magical names in the logs, or what will the puritans use as the scarlet letter to identify (and publicly shame) the sinners.

 

So now these "cheaters" are also "puritans"?

 

Exactly how does that work? Is there some hierarchical caste system present here? At the bottom are the couch potato loggers - the untouchables. At the top are the people that were present at all of their finds and signed the log. In the middle are the team players that split up and only visited a percentage of their logged finds. Some people have called the middle section "cheaters", and now you are calling them "puritans" if they happen to care about who is on the logsheet. I suppose a team of two people with each person visiting 50% of a powertrail would be higher up the ladder than 10 people who each only visited 10% of a powertrail?

 

It seems to be also true for tree hides with 4 levels.

• The untouchable couch potatoes don't visit the cache at all.
  
• Then there are others that spot the cache from the ground and log a find without signing in.
  
• The next level are the ones that don't climb at all, but have someone log them in.
  
• At the top are the people that actually climbed
  

 

The Puritans are also being castigated for shaming. The funny thing is that the word "Puritan" is a form of shaming. It may be meant in a playful manner, but it still is intended to segregate and separate cachers into different groups. Painting someone with the scarlet P for Puritan, isn't too much different as doing it with the scarlet C, for Cheating.

 

 

At some point the realization may occur that the numbers really don't mean anything at all. There are no cheaters or puritans. Its just a game.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

[+narcissa]

I don't really give a flying hoot about what someone else wants to log as a find, but anybody who moves, swaps, replaces, or otherwise vandalizes someone else's cache without clear permission from the cache owner is a total jerk and not worthy of regard.

 

Logging a false find might be a little annoying, but the cache owner can delete the log. When you mess with the cache container, you are ruining things for the next cachers who come along. That is NOT COOL.

[+briansnat]

 

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.

 

I wonder how they got away with placing 1,000+ caches they obviously had no intention of maintaining in the first place. If you do not intend to maintain a cache, don't place it and that goes double if you place 1,000+ with no intent to maintain them.

 

 

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.

 

Exactly! COs should not have to explicitly state they don't want these cheesy, non-traditional practices used on their caches, regardless if they are PTs, or geo-art. I'm amazed that anybody would automatically assume it's OK if the CO doesn't specifically address the issue one way or another. Actually that's not quite true. NOTHING the numbers hounds will do for those +1s amazes me these days.

Edited October 23, 2014 by briansnat

[+J Grouchy]

 

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.

 

I wonder how they got away with placing 1,000+ caches they obviously had no intention of maintaining in the first place. If you do not intend to maintain a cache, don't place it and that goes double if you place 1,000+ with no intent to maintain them.

 

By their very nature, Power Trails are at odds with the spirit and guidelines of geocaching with regards to maintenance and owner responsibilities. Can any honest reviewer tell me that they publish these things and seriously believe that the COs have a real maintenance plan? Do any of them ask for a maintenance plan from these folks? If so, what sort of responses do they get? "Ummm...I'm letting all the finders do maintenance on my 1200 caches. That's my plan."

[+jellis]

If you ask Groundspeak these question you know what kind of answer you are going to get.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

Exactly! COs should not have to explicitly state they don't want these cheesy, non-traditional practices used on their caches, regardless if they are PTs, or geo-art. I'm amazed that anybody would automatically assume it's OK if the CO doesn't specifically address the issue one way or another. Actually that's not quite true. NOTHING the numbers hounds will do for those +1s amazes me these days.

Even explicit statements and actions don't always work. Some COs with caches near power trails have used wire or cable ties to secure their caches to a particular location to deter swapping. Sadly, some of them have found that the wires/ties were cut and the caches were swapped anyway.

[+cheech gang]

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.

Exactly! COs should not have to explicitly state they don't want these cheesy, non-traditional practices used on their caches, regardless if they are PTs, or geo-art. I'm amazed that anybody would automatically assume it's OK if the CO doesn't specifically address the issue one way or another. Actually that's not quite true. NOTHING the numbers hounds will do for those +1s amazes me these days.

Even explicit statements and actions don't always work. Some COs with caches near power trails have used wire or cable ties to secure their caches to a particular location to deter swapping. Sadly, some of them have found that the wires/ties were cut and the caches were swapped anyway.

 

WOW!

[+jellis]

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.

Exactly! COs should not have to explicitly state they don't want these cheesy, non-traditional practices used on their caches, regardless if they are PTs, or geo-art. I'm amazed that anybody would automatically assume it's OK if the CO doesn't specifically address the issue one way or another. Actually that's not quite true. NOTHING the numbers hounds will do for those +1s amazes me these days.

Even explicit statements and actions don't always work. Some COs with caches near power trails have used wire or cable ties to secure their caches to a particular location to deter swapping. Sadly, some of them have found that the wires/ties were cut and the caches were swapped anyway.

 

WOW!

Hmmm doesn't seem right. Number cachers are not going to take the time to cut wires and ties when for those swapping a log sheet or stamping would be quicker.

[+CanadianRockies]

Hmmm doesn't seem right. Number cachers are not going to take the time to cut wires and ties when for those swapping a log sheet or stamping would be quicker.

How long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

[Keystone]

By their very nature, Power Trails are at odds with the spirit and guidelines of geocaching with regards to maintenance and owner responsibilities. Can any honest reviewer tell me that they publish these things and seriously believe that the COs have a real maintenance plan? Do any of them ask for a maintenance plan from these folks? If so, what sort of responses do they get? "Ummm...I'm letting all the finders do maintenance on my 1200 caches. That's my plan."

In my review territory, nobody can publish a power trail or add to a power trail with a statement on the cache listing saying "help me out with maintenance by replacing any missing containers" or similar text. That is not an acceptable maintenance plan. Geocaching HQ has confirmed that I was correct to require the owner to maintain their own caches instead of inviting the community to do the work for them. So, I then look to make sure that the owner of the power trail lives close enough to all caches along the power trail so that the entire trail is within their "maintainable distance."

 

Not every reviewer approaches the issue this way, but many do. Also, many reviewers are dogs.

[+jellis]

Hmmm doesn't seem right. Number cachers are not going to take the time to cut wires and ties when for those swapping a log sheet or stamping would be quicker.

How long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

Well the number cachers I know wouldn't do that. They wouldn't even carry cutters to do it. You're talking about real geovandals.

[+CanadianRockies]

Hmmm doesn't seem right. Number cachers are not going to take the time to cut wires and ties when for those swapping a log sheet or stamping would be quicker.

How long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

Well the number cachers I know wouldn't do that. They wouldn't even carry cutters to do it. You're talking about real geovandals.

I didn't say every number cacher cut wires; I said some apparently do.

[+tozainamboku]

Hmmm doesn't seem right. Number cachers are not going to take the time to cut wires and ties when for those swapping a log sheet or stamping would be quicker.

How long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

Well the number cachers I know wouldn't do that. They wouldn't even carry cutters to do it. You're talking about real geovandals.

I didn't say every number cacher cut wires; I said some apparently do.

The wire cutting story seems bogus. As stated if you're intent is to maximize your find rate, taking time to cut a tie would seem silly. Just swap the logs and leave the container alone.

 

If you believe containers are "generic", the ties would likely be a good indicator that the owner thinks his container and its location are non-generic enough to use a tie. I think this would discourage "generic" cachers from thinking the containers are swappable.

 

However, a muggle might find a containter tied to some existing object might think the container must have some value and is worth stealing, or maybe just thinks that people shouln't be tying things to trees or fences and takes the offending item. Later a generic cacher might leave a throwdown replacement.

 

But the "high-numbers" cachers are an easy target, so let's blame them for it.

[4wheelin_fool]

Even explicit statements and actions don't always work. Some COs with caches near power trails have used wire or cable ties to secure their caches to a particular location to deter swapping. Sadly, some of them have found that the wires/ties were cut and the caches were swapped anyway.

 

The people arguing in favor of powertrails have always stated that they are not bothering anyone. It seems like they are starting to now. Hidden by sock accounts that log them as found under their regular account, and then maintained by finders without any type of continuum in the logs. If people are now cutting tethers on other hides nearby and the practice of swapping containers is so prevalent that notes are needed on cache pages to prevent it, I'd say that the two forms of geocaching are not compatible, and it appears that the "puritans" will have to deal with it until someone puts a stop to it.

[4wheelin_fool]

The wire cutting story seems bogus. As stated if you're intent is to maximize your find rate, taking time to cut a tie would seem silly. Just swap the logs and leave the container alone.

 

If you believe containers are "generic", the ties would likely be a good indicator that the owner thinks his container and its location are non-generic enough to use a tie. I think this would discourage "generic" cachers from thinking the containers are swappable.

 

However, a muggle might find a containter tied to some existing object might think the container must have some value and is worth stealing, or maybe just thinks that people shouln't be tying things to trees or fences and takes the offending item. Later a generic cacher might leave a throwdown replacement.

 

But the "high-numbers" cachers are an easy target, so let's blame them for it.

 

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. Don't need video evidence for the obvious.

[+tozainamboku]

Don't need video evidence for the obvious.

I thought that thread got locked.

[4wheelin_fool]

Don't need video evidence for the obvious.

I thought that thread got locked.

 

Which thread was that? The one about trolling the forum with off topic posts?

 

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.

Edited October 23, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+CanadianRockies]

Hmmm doesn't seem right. Number cachers are not going to take the time to cut wires and ties when for those swapping a log sheet or stamping would be quicker.

How long do you think it takes to cut a wire?

Well the number cachers I know wouldn't do that. They wouldn't even carry cutters to do it. You're talking about real geovandals.

I didn't say every number cacher cut wires; I said some apparently do.

The wire cutting story seems bogus. As stated if you're intent is to maximize your find rate, taking time to cut a tie would seem silly. Just swap the logs and leave the container alone.

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. All that takes precious time if you want to maximize your find count for the day. That's why some number cachers prefer to swap containers rather than just swap logs. Once the container is back in the moving vehicle, the cache can be opened, the log signed, and the cache closed again.

 

If I was trying to maximize my finds irregardless of ethics or laws, then I'd certainly take half a second to snip a wire rather than swap logs.

[+tozainamboku]

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

[+Ma & Pa]

 

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

 

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

Edited October 23, 2014 by Ma & Pa

[+cerberus1]

 

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

 

Yep cant trust those high number cachers they are all cheaters. 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...