Speedcaching.... Or The Long Slow Trek?

[dbfletcher]

My friend and I occationally go geocaching together... however, we seem to have two very distinct styles for caching. I like to trust technology and just go straight towards the cache, but my friend on the other hand like to stick to the trails and take the scenic route to the cache.

 

Are there others out there like us? What method do you use? We just kinda want to get a pulse for what other cachers do. Which one of us is the "weird" one???

 

Please express yourselves!!!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

Whichever works.

 

The trail is usually more enjoyable. Bushwacking more painful or vertical and often results in the loss of blood. But not always.

 

Neither of you are weird but your friend has all the brains.

[+DavidMac]

I'm definitely the "follow the trail the long way around" type. There have been too many times I've climbed my way through thick, thorny brush only to emerge near the cache hot, bloody, sweaty, and muddy 20 minutes later and discover that the trail looped back around and came back to within 20 feet of the cache after a nice 5 minute walk.

 

That, and I prefer low-impact caching, especially in sensitive areas. I'm not saying I won't bushwhack (some of my personal favorites have been hidden far from the trail), just that I prefer not to if there's an alternative.

 

edit: fixed a tag

Edited February 14, 2006 by DavidMac

[dbfletcher]

I'm definitely the "follow the trail the long way around" type. There have been too many times I've climbed my way through thick, thorny brush only to emerge near the cache hot, bloody, sweaty, and muddy 20 minutes later and discover that the trail looped back around and came back to within 20 feet of the cache after a nice 5 minute walk.

 

That, and I prefer low-impact caching, especially in sensitive areas. I'm not saying I won't bushwhack (some of my personal favorites have been hidden far from the trail), just that I prefer not to if there's an alternative.

 

edit: fixed a tag

 

Ok.. I'll admit that 90% of the time, after finding the cache.. there is a trail with in a few hundred feet. But I just have a really hard time when i come to a fork in the trial... my GPS hints at one direction.... but the reality is that it is almost always the other direction. Who knew??? I guess that is why hind-sight is 20/20. Thanks!

[+cudlecub]

Ttam42 and my logs on this cache justifies sticking to the trail. It was quite an adventure we had. Stick to the trails unless you're a SHORT distance from ground zero.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Both - some hiders will specify little or no bushwhacking so i believe them and stay with the trail. Others are likely to take you for a bit of an adventure. It's easy to bushwhack in Florida's pine woodlands, it's hardly bushwhacking, you can just strike off on a bearing. But real tough in the swamps. With some hiders, if I'm on the wrong side of the cypress slough, I figure I can back out and come around somehow, with others, I might as well start wading.

[+briansnat]

I'm definitely the "follow the trail the long way around" type. There have been too many times I've climbed my way through thick, thorny brush only to emerge near the cache hot, bloody, sweaty, and muddy 20 minutes later and discover that the trail looped back around and came back to within 20 feet of the cache after a nice 5 minute walk.

 

This has been my experience too. You have to remember that in most cases the hider doesn't want to get torn apart by thorns and covered with mud while placing the cache. He usually finds an easy route. Nearly every time I scrambled over rocks, through thick brush and thorns, I found an easy way out after finding the cache.

 

 

Also be aware that some parks have a "stay on the trail" rule. If the park does, then bushwacking is not good for our sport.

[Lt32]

Some parks/recreational areas mandate that the trails be used and do not allow bushwacking. They prefer that users follow the Leave no Trace program. If everybody just went off on thier own it wouldn't be long before there would be trails where they didn't want them, especially in sensitive areas.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I'm definitely a "Look for a trail first, Fox", but inevitably we end up bushwacking regardless. The upside is that we've seen a lot more interesting sights because of our "detours" Usually we'll try one method until it starts a bit of ribbing and then egg each other on until we try it the other way. Also depends on the time of day. Bushwacking on the first cache is lot more fun than on the 5th!

 

And for the anti-bushwacking: For parks with rules that prohibit bushwacking, follow the rules. Someone has to start a trail sooner or later or there's no trail to follow!

Edited February 14, 2006 by fox-and-the-hound

[vagabond]

Try looking at usaphotomaps or some other program like it, it can save a lot of grief sometimes and usually a lot of time.

[Voigt54601]

I just went and found a cache the other day, if I would have gone straight to the mark, I would have had to go wayyyy down a hill, then wayyyy back up. Instead I followed the trail (against my partners wishes) and it took us to it at almost the same altitude all the way to the cache. It was a long enough hike without adding the hills to it. Why make it tougher than need be? I learned early to read others entries and look for hints ; "stay on trail" or the like.

 

I just placed a cache that is still in need of review, I had to get a permit from the DNR to put it there. Within that permit, they encourage you to stay off the trails, DONT take the beaten path, they don't want more trails than needed. As well, I have to move the cache once every 12 months, or as directed by the park director.

 

Just thought I'd add that, that sometimes it's good to beat a path, and sometimes not. If the trail is marked with signs n stuff, take it, if not , dont make another beaten path that may disrupt the habitat.

 

my $.02

[+Lil Devil]

Bushwhacking and making new trails is a good way to get geocaching banned by the park managers. Don't do it

[+Coastiegirl04]

When i started out, i would go straight to the cache, and found myself, losing blood, being soaking wet(fell in a swampy area while balancing on a log), So i got smart, stuck to the trails, and found it much more enjoyable this way, plus i didn't get stared at as much when i started using the trails,but when i bushwacked adn crossed a path yelling "WOW a path!" i got stared at when there happened to be trail users there!

[+DavidMac]

Bushwhacking and making new trails is a good way to get geocaching banned by the park managers. Don't do it

 

That's my concern with bushwhacking in sensitive areas. I've done alot of work with NPS staff (academic/research related, not caching), and one day, one of the staff at a major national park took us out on a tour to demonstrate how they balance visitor enjoyment and resource preservation. Many trails, paths, and heavily traveled areas are carefuly planned so as to reduce the impact that visitors have on sensitive areas. She showed us numerous spots around a popular nature trail that had been trampled by visitors, and many social trails and switchback shortcuts that had been formed in under a week- not just a little disturbed brush, but hard, packed dirt. There was even a small wetlands area (about a quarter acre) that had been drained by a social trail that had been packed deep enough that water began to flow down it, creating a small creek.

 

Granted, none of this was caching related (this was years after caches had been banned from NPS land), but many land managers worry about cachers causing the same kind of damage. It was interesting to get the perspective of a land manager in an agency that has banned caching (for many of the same concerns). Many national parks, and many public areas in general, are created around environmentally sensitive or unique areas. It only takes one person to start a trail, and the more well defined the trail becomes, the more prone people are to follow it, even if just to "see where it ends up". It's not just limited to areas with sensitive plants- there are areas in the Utah desert nearly devoid of vascular plants in which a single footstep can destroy 50 years of microbial growth.

[+StarBrand]

Early on I discovered the folly of bushwacking. Left the trail, climbed over large area of downed trees, skirted around a 100 foot deep - 20 foot wide arroyo, climbed a high hill, bloodied my hand in a slip/fall, got rained on and then discovered a trail about 50 foot from the cache. Easy trip back to the Jeep.

See Link

 

I have one hide that strongly discourages the straight arrow method as that will take you across some of the most rugged terrian that Nebraska can offer. Follow the trail until close then head off towards it.

Edited February 14, 2006 by StarBrand

[+Mule Ears]

I do a lot of caches in areas where there are no trails, so I've become pretty adept at backcountry route-finding and hiking. But where a trail exists (and goes in the direction of the cache), it's usually crazy not to take it.

 

Last cache-hike I did involved some bushwhacking, but I found trails to follow most of the way. 12.5 miles and 4500 feet of elevation gain/loss in six hours at a pleasant pace. Covering the same distances off-trail would have been an 8-hour slog.

[+Blue Bomb]

Last Sunday morning I did a series of caches in an area park, over 250 acres in size. If I would have gone in a straight line, cache to cache, it would have definately made the hike longer time wise, and possibly needed climbing gear. As well as the danger factor. Once you fall on a 60 degree muddy slope, or on the edge of a highwall, you will not stop until you hit the bottom.

 

The there were the river crossings. The trails cross at shallow spots where the water didn't go over my boots if I stayed on top of the rocks. Pretty much everywhere else it would have been at least knee deep. When it is 18 degrees out with a sub zero windchill and you're on a 3 hour excursion, wet feet/socks/pants are not a good thing.

 

I stuck to the trail, and am happy I did.

[+Strider - King of Gondor]

I'm definitely the "follow the trail the long way around" type. There have been too many times I've climbed my way through thick, thorny brush only to emerge near the cache hot, bloody, sweaty, and muddy 20 minutes later and discover that the trail looped back around and came back to within 20 feet of the cache after a nice 5 minute walk.

 

This has been my experience too. You have to remember that in most cases the hider doesn't want to get torn apart by thorns and covered with mud while placing the cache. He usually finds an easy route. Nearly every time I scrambled over rocks, through thick brush and thorns, I found an easy way out after finding the cache.

 

 

Also be aware that some parks have a "stay on the trail" rule. If the park does, then bushwacking is not good for our sport.

 

My sentiments exactly....nurmerous bushwacks lead to a trail just a little bit beyond the cache, while taking the trail sometimes you find it doesen't lead you there. Specifying trail use in the cache listing always helps in making this determination, and minimizes pissing off the property owners , which is a key to the sport

[+Mighty Nimbus]

I prefer to stick to the path. I try to take my 5 year old son with me as much as possible. He loves to cache and bushwacking offers too much of a risk when he is along with me. It is the trails for us.

[+Alan2]

Both - some hiders will specify little or no bushwhacking so i believe them and stay with the trail. Others are likely to take you for a bit of an adventure. It's easy to bushwhack in Florida's pine woodlands, it's hardly bushwhacking, you can just strike off on a bearing. But real tough in the swamps. With some hiders, if I'm on the wrong side of the cypress slough, I figure I can back out and come around somehow, with others, I might as well start wading.

 

Wading. egads- what about 'gators?

[+JohnnyVegas]

I do most of my caching alone, my gorlfreind refuses to drink water when hiking, so I leave her home.

I stick to trails for saftey concernes. Bushwacking can be more trouble than it is worth.

[Voigt54601]

gorlfreind refuses to drink water when hiking, so I leave her home.

 

[+edscott]

Depends... I read the map and decide on the most interesting route... the easiest route... the shortest route.. depending on how much time I have and my mood at the moment. As far as environmental impact.. a few bushwhacking cachers should not do much damage in most environments (the Utah Desert environment described above however is a notable exception) as they probably will choose slightly different routes and make no permanent trail. Deer on the other hand always travel the same path and should be banned from NPS property.

[Voigt54601]

Deer on the other hand always travel the same path and should be banned from NPS property.

 

[+sceneseeker]

My thoughts - The cache owner put time and effort into finding a unique spot for his/her cache. No doubt, considering all the different directions one could approach the cashe. If instructed to bushwack, I would agree to it. Otherwise, I'd rather take the "long slow trek" to experience what the cache owner intended...it's the least I can do for their efforts.

[+Robespierre]

My most memorable: Mohican Forest, Ohio. "The needle points down this old wagon trail......." famous last words. Spent 2 hours, and finally, about 300 feet away, the approach was so steep that we slid backwards, and the dog just couldn't make it. Backtrack a half mile, finally we could climb the hill. Now that was fun and memorable, but sticking to the trail has become a lifelong habit, and whenever the urge gets strong....... I usually manage to overcome it.