+hydnsek Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) Dang, GeoRoo's on fire! Not only is he one of the top contenders, but he's getting there by placing caches. He's got 10 hides on the Highest list, 6 of them new. You go, guy! Edited September 28, 2007 by hydnsek Quote Link to comment
+The Navigatorz Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Dang, GeoRoo's on fire! Not only is he one of the top contenders, but he's getting there by placing caches. He's got 10 hides on the Highest list, 6 of them new. You go, guy! I tend to keep an eye on the bottom of the Bookmark list to see which Find of mine will get dropped off due to new higher caches. So far I have lost about 18,000 feet since the challenge began. Presently my lowest find from the highest list is #93, Trail to Cougar Valley. Hopefully I can finish before more are bumped, as I have 8 finds in the bottom 20. Quote Link to comment
+hydnsek Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Dang, GeoRoo's on fire! Not only is he one of the top contenders, but he's getting there by placing caches. He's got 10 hides on the Highest list, 6 of them new. You go, guy! I tend to keep an eye on the bottom of the Bookmark list to see which Find of mine will get dropped off due to new higher caches. So far I have lost about 18,000 feet since the challenge began. Presently my lowest find from the highest list is #93, Trail to Cougar Valley. Hopefully I can finish before more are bumped, as I have 8 finds in the bottom 20. I know how you feel. I've had at least 5 finds bumped off. Now my goal is to find nothing lower than #80, although at the rate new ones are being placed, even that may not be enough. Quote Link to comment
+eagsc7 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 And it Looks Like I'm completely Out of the running... Ohh well. I'll get rich Smoeday and buy a Helicopter and get them all done really quickly. The Steaks Quote Link to comment
+MtnGoat50 Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 And it Looks Like I'm completely Out of the running... Ohh well. I'll get rich Smoeday and buy a Helicopter and get them all done really quickly. The Steaks Hmmmmm.....That's a great idea! My brother in law, has a couple of helicopters. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 The latest update has resulted in the following three caches being added to the list: #39 - "Mission Peak Trail" by The Navigatorz (GC16ABG) - 6544.4 feet #42 - "Esmeralda View" by lamprizzle (GC16094) - 6460.3 feet #50 - "On Tudle's Pond" by Patudles (GC16A9M) - 6355.8 feet The following caches have as a result dropped out of the top 100: GCG67D Sunset Blues by Misfire & Mrs. HHooligan GC140D7 Blue Mountain Skyline #3 by Bluesman63 GCGZXC Tin Pan Gap Cache by run4cache Quote Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted October 17, 2007 Author Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) The list has been updated and I've added the following 2 caches: #09 - "South Navarre Peak- final assault" by Mr. Gadget #2 (GC16NB3) - 7738.6 feet #60 - "Nelson Butte Lookout" by Mr. Gadget #2 (GC16NB9) - 6253.6 feet The following caches have as a result dropped out of the top 100: GCMWT4 Goats R Us by ruck GC15MRN King Lake Geocache by astanford Also, since the lowest elevation among the top 100 caches is now 5952 feet, the archived "Tronson Ridge" cache by Rentakid (GCGF03) at 5930 feet no longer counts toward the challenge. Edited October 17, 2007 by Moun10Bike Quote Link to comment
+ruck Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 The list sure has changed since inception, I've lost a smidge over 50,000 ft so far, can hardly wait to see what spring brings. Man, the radar on this cache reaches really low! Quote Link to comment
+The Navigatorz Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 The list sure has changed since inception, I've lost a smidge over 50,000 ft so far, can hardly wait to see what spring brings. Man, the radar on this cache reaches really low! Since its inception in mid-July, there have been 21 new hides, meaning 21 caches have been bumped off the list. As a result I lost about 18,000 feet. Looking ahead, if there are another 20 new hides next spring/summer, I will lose over 60,000 feet. That would be a real oucher. Quote Link to comment
+ruck Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The list sure has changed since inception, I've lost a smidge over 50,000 ft so far, can hardly wait to see what spring brings. Man, the radar on this cache reaches really low! Since its inception in mid-July, there have been 21 new hides, meaning 21 caches have been bumped off the list. As a result I lost about 18,000 feet. Looking ahead, if there are another 20 new hides next spring/summer, I will lose over 60,000 feet. That would be a real oucher. Yep, another 20 will cost me 54,000, and I figure your one of at least four cachers I'll be cursing when it happens. Quote Link to comment
+The Navigatorz Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Yep, another 20 will cost me 54,000, and I figure your one of at least four cachers I'll be cursing when it happens. Quote Link to comment
+The Navigatorz Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I can't wait until the snow disappears out of the high country so I can get to those higher elevation caches. I ran across this website below from the USDA called Snowtel. It provides clickable maps and tables of all the snow gauging stations, complete with their coordinates and elevations, as well as temperature information. Perhaps a useful reference to check when planning a high elevation adventure. SNOWTEL Quote Link to comment
+hydnsek Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I can't wait until the snow disappears out of the high country so I can get to those higher elevation caches. I ran across this website below from the USDA called Snowtel. It provides clickable maps and tables of all the snow gauging stations, complete with their coordinates and elevations, as well as temperature information. Perhaps a useful reference to check when planning a high elevation adventure. SNOWTEL Wow, this is very useful, thanks for sharing! Although I'm not sure what a snow depth of -99.9 at Alpine Meadows means (I think it means something needs fixin'). Quote Link to comment
+WR7X Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 (edited) *-99.9 indicates invalid data received A couple of our higher elevation remote weather stations in the Blue Mountains stopped transmitting this winter. I suspect snow depth was a contributor. They sit on a "lunar lander" platform and could easily be buried with enough of the white stuff. This shouldn't be the problem with the snotels, however! Edited February 16, 2008 by WR7X Quote Link to comment
+A & J - Adrift Posted May 5, 2010 Share Posted May 5, 2010 Even though this cache has long been archived, its legacy lives on. High in Utah is based on it. We enjoyed completing that challenge so much that we created High in Nevada and High in Colorado. Thanks for the inspiration. Quote Link to comment
+_Shaddow_ Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I'm bring this one back. Feel free to Stop by http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=292710 for more information and to discuss Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.