Logs were swapped between caches!

[+Chogon]

Hi all,

 

I use the local power trails to do the 366 day challenge by just getting one of them a day. Today I went to the next cache on my list and pulled out the log to find that my name was already on the log, dated three weeks ago! I was sure I had not been there but maybe I made a mistake. So, I wrote down what I found so I could try to figure out what went wrong and maybe see if I had somehow missed logging it electronically.

So, I went to the another cache that was part of a different power trail but within a couple miles. WHAT! There was my signature again! from two weeks ago! Sheesh!

When I got back home I went through my notes (yes, I am a geeky geocaching geek that has to keep all kinds of records <shakes head>) and electronic logs and determine which GCs I did do on those dates.

Sure enough, it is as if someone gathered the logs from the caches several miles around and randomly put them back in different caches!

 

I've only been geocaching for a little more than a year so I am still learning different GCing techniques. But I have done a few power trails and realize that it takes an efficient "process" and good record keeping ;-)

Has anyone heard of a power trail process that could lead to someone accidentally putting logs back in the wrong caches?

Or was this a prank?

Or some very weird muggle event?

Has anyone ever heard of this before?

Or am I just overreacting?

 

Thanks,

Chogon

[+MartyBartfast]

It's probably caused by what is often called the "Three Cache Monte", used by some for logging power trails.

 

This works by picking up the log from cache 1, and replacing it with a new log you took with you. You then sign the log you picked up while driving 161m to the next cache, you then pick up the log from cache 2 and leave the one you picked up from cache 1. You sign log 2 on the way to cache 3, and keep doing this all the way along the power trail. By the time a number of cachers have done this the log from any particular cache could have migrated a few miles down the line.

Edited November 14, 2016 by MartyBartfast

[+fizzymagic]

The behavior you describe is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. It goes by the name of "three-cache monte." A group doing a power trail will take the entire cache container and sign the log while driving to the next cache in the series. They then leave the log at that cache and take the new one from the next spot, continuing that pattern for the entire power trail.

 

I find the practice distasteful, but, since I don't do power trails, it doesn't affect me. You are unlucky, for it does affect you.

 

My advice: you know which caches you have and have not found. Sign the log again and record the find.

[+Chogon]

Ahhhh. Thanks guys. At least I wasn't going crazy here!

And now I understand why some got further away than other because there was a mixture of pill bottles and magnetics in guard rails which messed them up a little.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me is the CO specifically placed a particular cache container to go with the site. And I remember thinking "What was the CO thinking placing that kind of container there - that just doesn't fit"

 

Thanks!

Chogon

[+Manville Possum]

I guess the thing that bothers me is the CO specifically placed a particular cache container to go with the site. And I remember thinking "What was the CO thinking placing that kind of container there - that just doesn't fit"

 

I have seen that claim several times before that the caches are "special" to the location. But, no. They are just power trail caches to get around guidelines.

 

And if they were placed in good content... they are just power trail caches and will be played accordingly.

[+noncentric]

I saw this on a trail of less than 30 caches. The caches were not hidden in 'power trail' fashion. I mean, they were about 0.10 miles apart, but the hide styles and containers were not all the same.

 

Anyway, I noticed that one cache was not hidden in the way the hint said it would be, but a cache further along the trail was hidden according to that earlier cache's hint. That cache further along the trail also didn't match its hint. So I surmised that someone swapped the caches.

 

I also ended up not finding one of the caches, but then found two caches at one location. It was a bit annoying, especially as that trail was not designed to be a "power trail". The CO provided specific hints for each hide, but those hints became useless when someone else mixed up the caches.

[+noncentric]

It's probably caused by what is often called the "Three Cache Monte", used by some for logging power trails.

 

The behavior you describe is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. It goes by the name of "three-cache monte." A group doing a power trail will take the entire cache container and sign the log while driving to the next cache in the series. They then leave the log at that cache and take the new one from the next spot, continuing that pattern for the entire power trail.

 

What happens with the last cache that the team finds during their run? Do they place it back at the first cache, the one where they placed a brand new log, or do they just trash it? I've wondered about this ever since I first heard about the "technique".

[+NanCycle]

It's probably caused by what is often called the "Three Cache Monte", used by some for logging power trails.

 

The behavior you describe is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. It goes by the name of "three-cache monte." A group doing a power trail will take the entire cache container and sign the log while driving to the next cache in the series. They then leave the log at that cache and take the new one from the next spot, continuing that pattern for the entire power trail.

 

What happens with the last cache that the team finds during their run? Do they place it back at the first cache, the one where they placed a brand new log, or do they just trash it? I've wondered about this ever since I first heard about the "technique".

 

I think, at the next cache they can't find, they just happen to have a replacement to throw down.

[+narcissa]

Ahhhh. Thanks guys. At least I wasn't going crazy here!

And now I understand why some got further away than other because there was a mixture of pill bottles and magnetics in guard rails which messed them up a little.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me is the CO specifically placed a particular cache container to go with the site. And I remember thinking "What was the CO thinking placing that kind of container there - that just doesn't fit"

 

Thanks!

Chogon

 

That's too bad. While some trail owners are okay with this stuff, if a cache owner has placed particular containers in specific locations, it's really not cool to move them around. Worth mentioning the shenanigans in your log.

[+fbingha]

It's probably caused by what is often called the "Three Cache Monte", used by some for logging power trails.

 

The behavior you describe is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. It goes by the name of "three-cache monte." A group doing a power trail will take the entire cache container and sign the log while driving to the next cache in the series. They then leave the log at that cache and take the new one from the next spot, continuing that pattern for the entire power trail.

 

What happens with the last cache that the team finds during their run? Do they place it back at the first cache, the one where they placed a brand new log, or do they just trash it? I've wondered about this ever since I first heard about the "technique".

They start with their own cache and take the last one with them.

[+on4bam]

And yet again there goes the first rule of geocaching. Find the cache, log and rehide as you found it. But hey, it's OK because it's a PT.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I agree with on4bam. It's not geocaching. It might be geosomethingelse but it's not geocaching. Geocache are supposed to be hidden back where you found them. What's more, moving logs from one cache to another completely negates the purpose of signing the log as proof of visit. Might as well not bother signing logs at all - just touch or even just see the cache and then move on to the next. Yawn.

[+baer2006]

Might as well not bother signing logs at all - just touch or even just see the cache and then move on to the next.

I'm sure that's how powertrailers (avoiding the term "geocachers" here ) actually do it every once in a while.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's probably caused by what is often called the "Three Cache Monte", used by some for logging power trails.

 

The behavior you describe is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. It goes by the name of "three-cache monte." A group doing a power trail will take the entire cache container and sign the log while driving to the next cache in the series. They then leave the log at that cache and take the new one from the next spot, continuing that pattern for the entire power trail.

 

What happens with the last cache that the team finds during their run? Do they place it back at the first cache, the one where they placed a brand new log, or do they just trash it? I've wondered about this ever since I first heard about the "technique".

 

I assume that they would just keep it for the next power trail they do. In order to do the three cache monte they would have to bring a cache for the first cache on the trail they find.

 

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And yet again there goes the first rule of geocaching. Find the cache, log and rehide as you found it. But hey, it's OK because it's a PT.

 

I wouldn't place the blame on PTs. Those that do this are disregarding the rule because it allows them to to increase their find count as fast as possible. There high find count has become more important than following the basic tenets of geocaching.

 

 

[+hzoi]

Saw this happen on a power trail west of Las Cruces. I used the road to train for the Bataan memorial death march and did an 18 mile practice hike, 9 out and 9 back. I wanted to save some caches for the next weekend's 20 mile practice hike, so I only hunted for every other one. The next weekend, I found my signature on at least half of the logs on caches I hadn't yet found. Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

 

I think it's inconsiderate as heck.

[+redsox_mark]

I've never liked this "three cache monte", and would not do it myself.

 

But, it is one thing if the containers are all identical, and the CO encourages it in the cache description.

 

It is worse if the containers are different as seems in this case, e.g. with magnetic caches on guardrails, and non-magnetic caches elsewhere.

[+niraD]

I've never liked this "three cache monte", and would not do it myself.

 

But, it is one thing if the containers are all identical, and the CO encourages it in the cache description.

 

It is worse if the containers are different as seems in this case, e.g. with magnetic caches on guardrails, and non-magnetic caches elsewhere.

Part of the problem with the unofficial status of the three cache monte is that there is no way to clearly distinguish where it is allowed and where it is not. Since the numbers run trails that allow/encourage the three cache monte can't come out and say that it is allowed, they end up looking just like the series and power trails where it is not allowed, where the containers are not identical and interchangeable, where the normal rules apply and you're expected to return the geocache to its original location.

[+on4bam]

Part of the problem with the unofficial status of the three cache monte is that there is no way to clearly distinguish where it is allowed and where it is not.

 

It can't be allowed as the rule just is "find cache, log, put cache back" It doesn't say "put cache somewhere else".

[+coman123]

Makes it hard for the cache owner to to proper maintenance when needed, what was once a Magnetic key holder is now a bison tube Etc.

[+cerberus1]

I wouldn't place the blame on PTs. Those that do this are disregarding the rule because it allows them to to increase their find count as fast as possible. There high find count has become more important than following the basic tenets of geocaching.

Saw this happen on a power trail west of Las Cruces. I used the road to train for the Bataan memorial death march and did an 18 mile practice hike, 9 out and 9 back. I wanted to save some caches for the next weekend's 20 mile practice hike, so I only hunted for every other one. The next weekend, I found my signature on at least half of the logs on caches I hadn't yet found. Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

 

I think it's inconsiderate as heck.

+1

It seems to be a completely different hobby (to me), when "find count" is the goal, rather than location.

[+hzoi]

Makes it hard for the cache owner to to proper maintenance when needed, what was once a Magnetic key holder is now a bison tube Etc.

 

On the bright side, cache maintenance is usually not a problem on a power trail, as if a cache is (or even appears to be) missing, some finders are more apt to throw down a cache than report it needs maintenance. Everybody wins!

 

</sarcasm>

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've never liked this "three cache monte", and would not do it myself.

 

But, it is one thing if the containers are all identical, and the CO encourages it in the cache description.

 

It is worse if the containers are different as seems in this case, e.g. with magnetic caches on guardrails, and non-magnetic caches elsewhere.

 

Yes. I was upset when it happened on my GeoArt. I never considered it a Power Trail. About a four mile walk or bike ride. Twenty-four different puzzles. Some easy. A few very difficult. But the MKH disappeared. It was wher nano was supposed to be. Guess the nano went where the fake bolt was. And the fake bolt probably ended up where the bison tube was hanging. Very frustrating. But it's archived now, so I don't have to worry. Rather doubt I'd put out a new series like that.

[+Mudfrog]

I wouldn't place the blame on PTs. Those that do this are disregarding the rule because it allows them to to increase their find count as fast as possible. There high find count has become more important than following the basic tenets of geocaching.

Saw this happen on a power trail west of Las Cruces. I used the road to train for the Bataan memorial death march and did an 18 mile practice hike, 9 out and 9 back. I wanted to save some caches for the next weekend's 20 mile practice hike, so I only hunted for every other one. The next weekend, I found my signature on at least half of the logs on caches I hadn't yet found. Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

 

I think it's inconsiderate as heck.

+1

It seems to be a completely different hobby (to me), when "find count" is the goal, rather than location.

+2

Not sure what this might be called but one thing is for sure, it ain't geocaching!

[+Mama514]

I wouldn't place the blame on PTs. Those that do this are disregarding the rule because it allows them to to increase their find count as fast as possible. There high find count has become more important than following the basic tenets of geocaching.

Saw this happen on a power trail west of Las Cruces. I used the road to train for the Bataan memorial death march and did an 18 mile practice hike, 9 out and 9 back. I wanted to save some caches for the next weekend's 20 mile practice hike, so I only hunted for every other one. The next weekend, I found my signature on at least half of the logs on caches I hadn't yet found. Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

 

I think it's inconsiderate as heck.

+1

It seems to be a completely different hobby (to me), when "find count" is the goal, rather than location.

+2

Not sure what this might be called but one thing is for sure, it ain't geocaching!

Hey, SETX member- just realized I found one of your caches as a "bonus" when a friend and I were biking a series back in April. She got there earlier than me and parked at one end. I picked her up in the middle, loaded her bike, parked at the other end, unloaded and headed off to grab all the letterboxes. They were all pretty much the same container so that pattern made the finding quicker. We signed every one and replaced as found. Heading back to her car on our bikes, we found a multi she had figured already plus a couple of traditionals. All in all, I think there were about 45 or so that she got. I got half that much. We were biking. In no way was this comparable to the ET highway but could be considered a PT? It was fun and good exercise! Much more preferred over driving and jumping out every 528ft. That just seems like work to me- not fun.

 

Anyway, about this being inconsiderate as heck:

I tend to think the PT owners don't check paper logs and "depend" on others to replace "missing" containers. Funny, I could log the ET highway with a cut and paste on every one. Or for that matter, any other PT I find on the map. Not going to though.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Mama514

[+Mudfrog]

I wouldn't place the blame on PTs. Those that do this are disregarding the rule because it allows them to to increase their find count as fast as possible. There high find count has become more important than following the basic tenets of geocaching.

Saw this happen on a power trail west of Las Cruces. I used the road to train for the Bataan memorial death march and did an 18 mile practice hike, 9 out and 9 back. I wanted to save some caches for the next weekend's 20 mile practice hike, so I only hunted for every other one. The next weekend, I found my signature on at least half of the logs on caches I hadn't yet found. Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

 

I think it's inconsiderate as heck.

+1

It seems to be a completely different hobby (to me), when "find count" is the goal, rather than location.

+2

Not sure what this might be called but one thing is for sure, it ain't geocaching!

Hey, SETX member- just realized I found one of your caches as a "bonus" when a friend and I were biking a series back in April. She got there earlier than me and parked at one end. I picked her up in the middle, loaded her bike, parked at the other end, unloaded and headed off to grab all the letterboxes. They were all pretty much the same container so that pattern made the finding quicker. We signed every one and replaced as found. Heading back to her car on our bikes, we found a multi she had figured already plus a couple of traditionals. All in all, I think there were about 45 or so that she got. I got half that much. We were biking. In no way was this comparable to the ET highway but could be considered a PT? It was fun and good exercise! Much more preferred over driving and jumping out every 528ft. That just seems like work to me- not fun.

 

Anyway, about this being inconsiderate as heck:

I tend to think the PT owners don't check paper logs and "depend" on others to replace "missing" containers. Funny, I could log the ET highway with a cut and paste on every one. Or for that matter, any other PT I find on the map. Not going to though.

Had to think for a moment. Yes, that hike and bike trail is just north of us and was placed by a couple of friends of ours. Just a few years ago, big forest fire came through the area my cache, Olive, is placed in. Needless to say, everything was burned so the area has changed a bunch. Definitely not as pretty out there as it once was.

 

As far as the hike and bike trail goes, i think i can safely speak for my friends in saying they would NOT appreciate people swapping the containers.

[+Chrysalides]

Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

I think you're safe.

[+hzoi]

Which means if the cache owner ever did an audit, they'd think I hadn't logged a bunch.

I think you're safe.

It hasn't kept me up at night so far.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Yes. I was upset when it happened on my GeoArt. I never considered it a Power Trail. About a four mile walk or bike ride. Twenty-four different puzzles. Some easy. A few very difficult. But the MKH disappeared. It was wher nano was supposed to be. Guess the nano went where the fake bolt was. And the fake bolt probably ended up where the bison tube was hanging. Very frustrating. But it's archived now, so I don't have to worry. Rather doubt I'd put out a new series like that.

 

I'd be upset too.

 

Around here (England) I've never seen or heard of people doing this. And I would not consider a walking trail with 20 or 30 caches a "power trail".

 

It makes no sense for me for someone to even consider doing this on such a trail. Let's say it takes me 1 minute on average to open a container and sign the log. Could be done faster; could be slower if the cache is larger and there are swag or trackables to look at, but let's say 1 minute. A walk of 4 miles and 24 caches would likely take me 2-4 hours (depends greatly on terrain and difficulty of the hides). So maybe I could "save" 24 minutes doing this. Why would I do that? I like to enjoy the find and signing the log; I'm not in a great hurry.

 

While I don't like the idea for any type of cache; with a drive-by trail of 1000 caches I at least see the "temptation". Saving 1 minute per cache would save 16 hours of the time needed. Even saving 10 seconds per cache would save nearly 3 hours. And if cachers are trying to complete it in a day, or set some record... well I can understand it. Every second counts. I still don't like it, but I can understand why such timesaving tricks are used, if cachers can get away with it.

[+NanCycle]

I've never liked this "three cache monte", and would not do it myself.

 

But, it is one thing if the containers are all identical, and the CO encourages it in the cache description.

 

It is worse if the containers are different as seems in this case, e.g. with magnetic caches on guardrails, and non-magnetic caches elsewhere.

Part of the problem with the unofficial status of the three cache monte is that there is no way to clearly distinguish where it is allowed and where it is not. Since the numbers run trails that allow/encourage the three cache monte can't come out and say that it is allowed, they end up looking just like the series and power trails where it is not allowed, where the containers are not identical and interchangeable, where the normal rules apply and you're expected to return the geocache to its original location.

 

As I see it, the main problem is not what happens to the PT caches, but what happens to other caches, either in the area, or in other series. There is an area where I cache frequently that is well saturated with several series that Power Cachers like to treat as a single Power Trail.

 

Here's the Archive log from one of the caches in my favorite series in the area:

Archive 09/09/2015

Sorry everyone. Its tough to have to constantly repair this series everytime power cachers come flying into town, and leapfrog containers. takes the fun out of the game. Thanks for all who did this series.

 

And a maintenance log from the CO of several other series:

 

Owner Maintenance 05/30/2015

I had to come out east today to fix my 3 different . . . series' that someone leapfrogged and scrambled all the containers and clues for... again. It took us about 3.5 hours to fix it all up, not including travel time to and from our house.

 

This is what those despicable power cachers do to innocent cache owners when they get off of the specific power trail. I think the COs of the affected caches would be well within their rights to delete all the Found logs of those so-called cachers.

[+jellis]

And yet again there goes the first rule of geocaching. Find the cache, log and rehide as you found it. But hey, it's OK because it's a PT.

Hey rules of the game are meant to be bent or broken like burying caches.

[+on4bam]

And yet again there goes the first rule of geocaching. Find the cache, log and rehide as you found it. But hey, it's OK because it's a PT.

Hey rules of the game are meant to be bent or broken like burying caches.

 

Don't go off-topic

Burying is a guideline not a rule and a buried cache will not be found 161m away by the next cacher anyway.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And yet again there goes the first rule of geocaching. Find the cache, log and rehide as you found it. But hey, it's OK because it's a PT.

Hey rules of the game are meant to be bent or broken like burying caches.

 

Don't go off-topic

Burying is a guideline not a rule and a buried cache will not be found 161m away by the next cacher anyway.

 

The Geocaching Listing Requirements/Guidelines reads:

 

Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed.

 

The word "never" is indicative that it *is*, in fact a requirement (rule), and not a guideline.

 

 

[+on4bam]

 

 

Don't go off-topic