traildad

The one who ran it in the shortest time. If they both did it in exactly the same time, the first one gets the record, the second just matched it. If I am not mistaken there are indoor and outdoor records. When you do a speed run in a car don't you have to do the course in both directions so you get both a head and a tail wind? If you want to claim that you beat someone's record, you need to do it in a fair way on a similar course.

I don't remember anyone claiming that they didn't sign (sticker) the log. That as we know proves nothing. I am so glad to hear that where you come from there are no skeptics. Where I come from you don't call people names in a forum. Congratulations on your cache record 856 miles in 20 hours.

What if one person in your county does the mile indoors, downhill with a tail wind? The other does it out doors, uphill with a head wind. Who has the record? I think that you are misunderstanding the relationship between local records and world records. If I can run the mile faster than anyone ever has in my county, I will hold the county record. However, if someone on the other side of the state has run it faster, I will not hold the state record. If someone somewhere else has been even faster, he might hold the world record. Also, you might note that the geocaching record has never been 'Who can find the caches that GeoLobo specifies'. Obviously, any one of us could make a list of 20 caches in our local areas that cannot be found in 24 hours. That's not the point. The point is for some friends to get together and see how many caches that they can log in one day. The OP and his buds logged a wicked lot of them.

That would be perfectly fine with me. You don't need to believe my finds. The thing you seem to forget is that I did not go on the forum and announce to everyone that I have set a record. Major claim, Major proof. I made no claim so I don't need any proof. If it was up to me, my find count would not show. I am not in a contest or on an ego trip.

If you are interested in Rokons check here http://intrepidexplorers.org/forum/phpBB2/...b900e4cdb26ec8a

You might try the GSAK help web site. Other than that I am not sure what your question is. What are you trying to add them on to?

Then stop posting. Stop making this a huge argument. Stop caring about what someone posts about a record you consider suspect. If it's difficult to get excited, then don't. It's difficult to get excited about the "record". I am enjoying the conversation. I hope you don't mind.

Your math doesn't prove that it's improbable. It proves that it would be difficult, as any record should be. The very fact that there have now been several record runs that have logged over 400 caches proves that logging as many as the OP is not improbable. I've cached with high number cachers. They really do find caches super quickly. It's not magic. They merely have the experience and the ability necessary to do the job super fast. If a person was added to the team as an observer, people still would argue that he/she wasn't impartial enough. If so, then you did a poor job picking the observer. In that case, I would recommend that you don't take on this kind of challenge. Not in a thousand years. If you put enough light on the subject, it's no longer dark. they had flashlights, noggin lights, and headlights. It's not as if they were crawling around in the pitch black feeling around for the cache. Oh without a doubt. It seems they virtually knew where each cache was as they walked up. No searching necessary. It is somewhat of a no win deal for me. Either they fudged the whole thing or the caches were so so easy that it would be like a pro basketball team playing the 9th grade varsity, and then claiming the record for largest margin of victory ever. While still a very real record, some might poo poo it. Others have said that was how easy the caches are. I tend to think it was one or the other. It's hard to get excited about it either way.

In a hypothetical sense yes. But only if it was something more than hundreds of "run up, no search needed" type of caches.

This would be interesting. I can see teams of cachers coming to prove their worth on your course. Keep in mind that you would need to reset all the caches before the cache run. Others that find the cache might not hide it the same, making the next run possibly harder or easier.

Okay, so we've established that you do understand what kind of caches they were looking for during this numbers run. They had a self-imposed time limit of 1 minute per cache, which pretty much excludes any non-trivial hides. So are 1-star hides now "geocaches" in name only? If I find a single 1-star hide, am I still "geocaching"? What if I find a few of them? several of them? dozens of them? hundreds of them? At what point am I "geocaching" in name only? Yeah, it isn't the way I geocache either, but it's still geocaching. Just because someone plays the game differently than I do doesn't mean their version is no longer geocaching. Doing a 1 star hide is still geocaching. Doing what amounts to the same hide over and over is not what I call Geocaching. You notice that I don't say it is not Geocaching, I say it is not what I call Geocaching. As I noted for my example, doing 1000 lamp post caches is not my idea of Geocaching. You already know where the cache is hidden. You are not "looking" or "finding" it, you are simply lifting up the skirt and retrieving it. It is the same exact thing, just at different coordinates. Geocaching involves looking for and finding a cache. Walking up to and retrieving it is just not the same thing. Doing a 1000 lamp post caches to run up your find count is pretty much the same thing to me. It counts as a smiley, but it is not what I call Geocaching.

Perhaps you could tell us what would constitute proof for you? Reasonable proof would be an independent observer. Guinness book of world records type of confirmation. After the fact as it is now I suppose the best I could come up with is an review of the caches done and a small reenactment that shows that kind of average was reasonable for all the caches found. Since there is no real records kept, I doubt anyone would feel a real need to verify this. Maybe someday I will try this with a lamp post cache. How long does it take to drive from a tenth of a mile, get out and put a sticker in the log and drive at least another tenth of a mile. If I can do it for one, maybe I can convince myself that it is possible to do it for 400.

And I'm so annoyed with the fuzzy math that I've offered to do an audit. I don't see any of you stepping up to the plate on that post. You're having more fun arguing. Remember that the cost of the audit will be appropriate apologies rendered here. What is the audit, that their sticker are on the logs? It would prove that they are not idiot liars. It would be pretty lame to make a claim like this knowing that you didn't even sign the logs.

I never said my math proves that they couldn't have. The math shows that it's improbable, nothing more. Big difference. I've never called anyone a liar. And as far as I'm concerned, the math does give "reason" to wonder. Webster's dictionary: Improbable, adj. not likely to occur. Skeptical, adj. to doubt or question. Sounds exactly like what I've said. Is that calling them a liar? Maybe by your definition, but not by Webster's definition, and not by mine either. I would never call a person a liar without indisputable evidence. Does that mean I believe everything I'm told as long as I have no evidence to dispute it? Certainly not, and I feel sorry for anybody who does, because chances are there are taken advantage of quite often. To those who insist I'm calling them liars, you can justify anything to yourselves. I know where both my head and my heart is. I've amazed alot of people with where I've been able to take my 4x4 van. Those who have witnessed some of my outings would doubt it, be skeptical, and say that it was improbable without having seen it themselves. I would never accuse those skeptics of calling me a liar. They would simply be applying logic, and I couldn't fault them for that, because the math, when it comes to my van doesn't really work. But the van does. So, to Ventura Kids; If in fact you did accomplish this, my geo-hat is off to you. It had to have taken alot of prep, alot of stamina, top-quality geo-sense, near perfect conditions, and alot of luck. Again, improbable, not impossible. So, to Ventura Kids; If in fact you did accomplish this So, you doubt what they claim. You don't accept it as fact. In many cases, I'm a strong believer in gray areas, but there are no gray areas here. They either did it, or they didn't do it. Which do you believe? "I don't know" is still siding pretty strongly on the side that thinks that they are either lying or did not follow the stringent rules that they have stated that they followed. So you doubt or question what they claim as fact. That's calling their claim a lie. So, you think that what they claim was was true was not likely to have occurred. That is calling them liars. Not even close. To tell someone "I will believe you when you prove it" is not calling them a liar. To say "that is not proof" is not calling them a liar. It is saying that maybe you are a liar, maybe you are telling the truth. Different people require different levels of proof. Because the claim has not been supported with a level of proof to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt for someone, does not mean they are closed to the possibility with better evidence. To call someone a liar means you have made up your mind and you think they are lying. With that said, some people will react that way. It you don't take them at their word, with no more proof than their word, they will feel that you are calling them a liar. The fact that they feel that way doesn't in itself make it true.

I never said my math proves that they couldn't have. The math shows that it's improbable, nothing more. Big difference. I've never called anyone a liar. And as far as I'm concerned, the math does give "reason" to wonder. Webster's dictionary: Improbable, adj. not likely to occur. Skeptical, adj. to doubt or question. Sounds exactly like what I've said. Is that calling them a liar? Maybe by your definition, but not by Webster's definition, and not by mine either. I would never call a person a liar without indisputable evidence. Does that mean I believe everything I'm told as long as I have no evidence to dispute it? Certainly not, and I feel sorry for anybody who does, because chances are there are taken advantage of quite often. To those who insist I'm calling them liars, you can justify anything to yourselves. I know where both my head and my heart is. I've amazed alot of people with where I've been able to take my 4x4 van. Those who have witnessed some of my outings would doubt it, be skeptical, and say that it was improbable without having seen it themselves. I would never accuse those skeptics of calling me a liar. They would simply be applying logic, and I couldn't fault them for that, because the math, when it comes to my van doesn't really work. But the van does. So, to Ventura Kids; If in fact you did accomplish this, my geo-hat is off to you. It had to have taken alot of prep, alot of stamina, top-quality geo-sense, near perfect conditions, and alot of luck. Again, improbable, not impossible. Well Said. Major Claims require Major Proof. To add to the last part So, to Ventura Kids; If in fact you did accomplish this, my geo-hat is off to you. It had to have taken alot of prep, alot of stamina, top-quality geo-sense, near perfect conditions, a lot of luck and a lot of very easy caches. Again, improbable, not impossible.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here or how it relates in anyway to this topic. In any event, wouldn't it be the other way around? If anyone was going to find 413 caches in 24 hrs it would be people who have what it takes to become 10k cachers. I was responding to someone else. The point is, it takes an "obsessed" cacher to find 10k caches. It would take an "obsessed" person to fake a record. And yes it could be the other way around. That is what I was responding to. Someone said that because they were 10k finders, that gave them the "cred" needed to "prove" the record. What your really have to do is move quickly and continuously for 24 hrs to do that. Very few of us can do that. Yes and you really have to care to do that for 24 hours. Yes, that could happen but for over three pages in this topic it has been discussed and virtually eliminated as a possibility for these participants. Ok, so are you saying that someone that knows them personally is vouching for them and that is proof? Or are you saying that people know that they have been caching for a long time and have lots of finds and that is proof? Major Claim, Major Proof. That is very easy to say about any goal anyone has achieved. No, it is easy to say about any goal that someone "claims" to have achieved. Think about what it takes to get in to the Guinness Book of World Records. Independent Observers would have been a good idea if you want to hold it out to the world wide Geocaching community. If you are just doing it for you own amusement, then do it for yourself and keep it to yourself. If you give equal consideration as to how it might be possible to accomplish this goal you might then say that it is possible to accomplish this goal. The evidence presented by VKs and ecanderson on these pages show how how it can be done. I can imagine running up to a cache that I know exactly where it is, and putting a sticker on the log in the time we are talking about. "Finding" that many caches, in the dark, would be a major accomplishment. I do acknowledge that if the caches were easy enough, someone could run up and get it that fast in the dark. For example driving into the middle of a parking lot and the GPSr takes you to a lamp post. You would not need time to search. A geocaching record that involves hundreds of that kind of cache is a "geocaching" record in name only. Let me say, I am sure that in certain circles that would be a completely worthy record. If you care enough about numbers to hunt 10,000 mind numbing lamp post hides, you would be impressed by doing 400+ in 24 hours. It is just a different game than the one I play.

"Looking" for caches in the dark? What kind of caches can you find in the dark and still stay under that per cache average. Hundreds of caches that can be "found" in 10 seconds, in the dark? Any decent camo can make the search time go up to a few minutes in the daylight much less the dark. Nanos that take 10 seconds to find in the dark. Do they just lay caches out in plain sight over there?

I don't think that you fully understand the nature of these caches. I once did a series of what I think were similar caches. Every mile (every section line) there was a benchmark. By every benchmark, there was a short fencepost with a small sign indicating that there was a benchmark there. These fenceposts were at most, 20 feet from the shoulder of the road. At the base of every one of those fenceposts was a film cannister. Inside every film cannister was a log. Getting the picture yet? The challenge here is NOT finding the greatest number of well hidden caches. The challenge here is being able to move quickly, stay awake, and not throw up. I've been scratching my head trying to figure out the people who complain that the can't filter out boring LPC hides by reading the cache page and looking a Google maps. "It takes too much time," they say; "I'd rather be spending my time finding caches than on the computer trying to figure out which caches I might like and which I wouldn't like". All this time I'd think about how when I go caching with Ventura_Kids, EMC, or f0t0m0m, they would have prepared a list of exactly which caches were were going to find that day. Sometimes, I can convince them to stop at some cache that was on my list and not on theirs. But mostly, we stick to the official list that someone took a lot of time planning. They do these lists for a casual day of caching that tozainamboku can keep up with. I can imagine how much prep time they put into a 24 record cache run. So why do the people who just want to go out and find a few caches have all these problems not being able to filter out the LPCs they dislike so much? My guess is that there is something fundamentally different in the brains of these high number obsessive cachers. They don't see prep time as interfering with their geocaching. It is something that they accept as a given. If they want to enjoy themselves caching they will spend hours preparing for it. Other cachers seem to believe that caching enjoyment should be handed to them on a silver plater. They don't have time to look at logs and Google maps to plan which caches they might enjoy. They want to punch in nearest cache in their GPS and find it pointing to something they like. I'm sure some of them will show the math that every hour spent in preparation is an hour that could've been spent cache. Unfortunately they will spend that hour caching finding caches they feel are lame. Had they spent the hour preparing they might even that they enjoy most every cache they hunt. It's also funny that while they don't have time to prepare, they have plenty of time to complain about in the forums. Well said indeed. Kind of hard to call it "well said" if it is totally off topic and simply an attempt to take a shot at someone you may disagree with.

I ofter wear a hunting vest. It has lots of pockets and the GPSr fits in well.

What did the lucky cacher say when you asked for the address so you could send the coin?

I don't think that you fully understand the nature of these caches. I once did a series of what I think were similar caches. Every mile (every section line) there was a benchmark. By every benchmark, there was a short fencepost with a small sign indicating that there was a benchmark there. These fenceposts were at most, 20 feet from the shoulder of the road. At the base of every one of those fenceposts was a film cannister. Inside every film cannister was a log. Getting the picture yet? The challenge here is NOT finding the greatest number of well hidden caches. The challenge here is being able to move quickly, stay awake, and not throw up. When the GPSr takes you to the middle of a parking lot next to a lamp post for more than the 2nd or 3rd time, is that really something to count for a "record"? It becomes more of a race than geocaching. If someone is a 10k cacher and "found" 2000 identical lamp post caches, 1700 identical guardrail caches etc. etc. should we be impressed? I guess it means something, but it isn't what geocaching is for me.

So, there are four people doing it to claim it, and 20 other helpers doing it to enable the other 4 to get all of the glory? I can sort of imagine that if there were to be a million-dollar prize and the 4 agree to give $20,000 each to the other 20, keep $125,000 for themselves, and $100,000 back to pay the hitman if one of the 20 squeals - but really, how much less likely is that, than that the 4 people just did it? I don't see where the 20 other helpers come in. If 4 people are working on their own they only need to do a 100 or so in 24 hours. Why would they need helpers? As I said, 4 people did it. The other scenario is your idea. How they went about doing it, only they know. Too bad they didn't involve the local caching group to make the record "official".

I have seen doubters, I have not seen anyone accuse them of lying. If anyone was going to bother with faking something like this it would be people who have what it takes to become 10k cachers. You really have to care to do that. Simply lying is not the only way to fake this. You could have several cachers all out on the same night "finding" caches on their own and putting the group sticker on the log. Then comes the claim that they were all found as a group, = "new record". No one could prove otherwise unless there was a witness or a video surveillance camera. I DO NOT accuse them of anything. I only say that it is possible to fake something like this.

Finding 100, 200, 300 or 400 identical lamppost hides is not what I would call caching. Geocaching records are kind of like course records with golfing. The best score on one course can't be compared to the best score on a different course. Do the same 400 someone else did and have time left over to do more and you beat their record. This whole thing sounds more like an exercise in endurance than caching.

Track logs can be created so I wouldn't consider it "proof".