Jump to content

What is the longest Caching streak !


Scubasonic
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, frostengel said:

* Searching for the cache, finding it and using a later date for the log ("I think I'll find it.... tomorrow.") without returning at that day is a higher cheating rate in case of the streaking. But still I don't know if this is clearly ruled by the guidelines if you use the wrong date!?

 

Certainly against the spirit of the streak. But if a dispute were to go to HQ for appeals, I'm pretty sure they'd leave the log - it was found and signed, does the date (on the logsheet) really matter? Around here many people no longer even put a date with their signature (irks me, but c'est la vie). But, I think if a cacher was shown to be abusing such a 'grey area', like perhaps intentionally not dating signatures so they can post unverifiable logs on any date they see fit where the CO can't do anything about it, a string of abuses like that might bring on a consequence from HQ, maybe interpreted as a TOU violation? Dunno, but HQ has come down on excessive and repeated intentional misuse of the website, even if not directly contravening a guideline; but more likely they'll take action if it does affect someone else in some way.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 3/3/2021 at 6:00 AM, frostengel said:

I wouldn't mind as you drive one hour to have a fun day (or some fun hours) of geocaching, doing some great hikes.... That's okay I think.

But driving (again and again) to get just one cache just for streaking purposes is useless in my eyes. In the end you drive one hour, find an easy cache which isn't very spectacular (you probably won't do a great hiking cache but the quick drive-in) and drive one hour back. Am I the only one thinking that this is useless throwing away of lifetime? And it degrades this special cache to what - a statistics point? That's a pity. :-(

 

It's an understandable viewpoint. But remember, people can value different things. For someone who does this, their value is not in the single find, it's in the whole experience - the goal, the travel, the fresh air, the achievement, perhaps the camaraderie, who knows what they value; but as long as the cost is worth it in their eye, they'll love it, even if they hate it =P.  Someone who looks at geocaching as every find holding its own exclusive value may not understand how someone could "work" for a goal like that and still completely enjoy it, by choice! :)  It's not for everyone. But I wouldn't say it's a pity.

Edited by thebruce0
grammar and a new thought
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I feel like I cant always remember the date -- I might put the wrong date when I am in the field.  But I always date my online logs correctly.   I try to log on the same day, so the computer does it for me.  If I get a bit delayed, I make sure to put the correct date for the entry (sometimes I have to correct it).  I am a stickler for logging in the correct order and with the correct date online. 

 

As for streaks, I got to 80, and it broke.  Not planning on attempting another one.

 

And Covid has made things even worse ... I think my slump may have grown from it.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, david&diana said:

Ranger Fox list his rules for Geocaching streaks in his profile: https://www.geocaching.com/p/?guid=dabb99dc-7bbc-44ab-b377-9f30b4f601cb

Interesting. Overall, they're reasonable rules. I have a minor quibble about the ban on team names though. If it's acceptable for another geocacher in the group to sign my name for me, then it should be just as acceptable for me or for another geocacher in the group to sign a team name. The point of a team name in this situation is to save space in the log, to save maintenance trips for the CO.

Link to comment

I don’t get the dateline crossing allowance in a ruleset that is otherwise so strict. It’s really easy to know what calendar day it is wherever you are, and you either sign a log on that day or you don’t. But if you’re a poor international flier you get to misdate a find on purpose?
 

Not personally a fan of rules that create arbitrary distinctions between geocache types. I get wanting to find only physical caches as a personal decision, but in the end a geocache should be a geocache, and ”attended” and ”webcam photo taken” are equal to ”found it”. I also disagree with some of the ”must log a find” rules, but they’re at least consistent and I can respect that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

I don’t get the dateline crossing allowance in a ruleset that is otherwise so strict. It’s really easy to know what calendar day it is wherever you are, and you either sign a log on that day or you don’t. But if you’re a poor international flier you get to misdate a find on purpose?

 

You don't have to be a "poor international flier" to lose a whole day. A flight from the USA to Australia will leave the west coast late evening on day X and arrive around dawn on the east coast of Australia on day X+2. At no point is there any opportunity to find a cache on day X+1, so yes, I can understand someone who's into a long streak but has to make such a flight for work purposes might want to make an allowance for it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I can understand someone who's into a long streak but has to make such a flight for work purposes might want to make an allowance for it.

I can understand wanting to make allowances for all kinds of things. What makes flying special, say, compared to lockdowns or catching a contagious disease yourself?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

I can understand wanting to make allowances for all kinds of things. What makes flying special, say, compared to lockdowns or catching a contagious disease yourself?

 

I don't know, maybe the person who came up with those rules does a lot of flying across the international date line, or at least felt it was something much more likely to happen than catching a contagious disease. If anything like that had happened during my streak I would have just abandoned the streak, but it was only for seven days so no big deal.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I can understand wanting to make allowances for all kinds of things. What makes flying special, say, compared to lockdowns or catching a contagious disease yourself?

 

Nothing. The one who makes the rules makes them as he needs them. That's all. He needs this rule so he uses it.

 

Reminds me of a challenge cache I saw once: "find 50 mystery caches in a row", no other caches allowed in between (that was allowed in those days). When fulfilling the challenge himself the owner wanted to make a traditional cache FTF so later FTFs were allowed. The challenge was published with this one exception. Someone told the owner that he had visited an event and so did not fulfill the challenge himself. So he allowed events. That was the moment when I decided that I don't want to do this challenge as it was just a "I make very special rules that fit to what I did." kind of thing.

 

Reminds me of Pippi Longstocking who is singing "Ich mach mir die Welt, wie sie mir gefällt" in the German version of the title song. ("I make theworld as I like it" might be a good translation).

 

But in fact if he says "Thats' my streak according to these rules." it is okay. If he doesn't tell other cachers their streak wasn't acceptable because they missed any of his rules ("You logged only a virtual cache. Doesn't count.") it's not that bad.

 

Jochen

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, frostengel said:

If he doesn't tell other cachers their streak wasn't acceptable because they missed any of his rules ("You logged only a virtual cache. Doesn't count.") it's not that bad

  • ”I do not honor someone who "pre finds" a cache.”
  • ”I suppose I'll honor someone who has done that. One day, I might have to do that.”

I like the Pippi Longstocking quote :)

Link to comment
17 hours ago, niraD said:

The point of a team name in this situation is to save space in the log, to save maintenance trips for the CO.

 

Group caching like this is sometimes abused using divide-and-conquer strategies. Admittedly, there's nothing to stop someone from fraudulently signing your caching name instead of a temporary team name, but that takes extra time and effort. 

 

If you personally sign each logsheet then your handwriting will (mostly) match. By personally signing your name it adds also adds to the finding aspect of finding a cache, as opposed to being with people who find a cache.

 

I think being in a car with someone and closing your eyes while they find a GRIM, LPC, or the like so you can find it later yourself while noble in the spirit of honesty seems a great example of the silliness of streaking. I'm reminded of the challenge cache restriction that challenges must be positive not negative i.e. you can require 50 Multis but you can't require 50 Multis in a row or 50% lifetime finds being Multis because that forces cachers not to find caches. I think this should also be true with streaks.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

it adds also adds to the finding aspect of finding a cache, as opposed to being with people who find a cache.

 

Okay, so you want to say if you are caching with a team mate and he finds the cache you are not the person finding it so it does not help you with the streak?

Luckily enough it's a logging streak and not a finding streak and whenever anyone from the team finds the cache the other present cachers (who are searching as well) may log it as found, too. Don't they?

In our team the first person to take out the logbook and finds a pen :D usually writes down all the names of the present team.

Edited by frostengel
smiley corrected
Link to comment
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Group caching like this is sometimes abused using divide-and-conquer strategies. Admittedly, there's nothing to stop someone from fraudulently signing your caching name instead of a temporary team name, but that takes extra time and effort. 

Again, if it's acceptable for another geocacher in the group to sign my name for me, then it should be just as acceptable for me or for another geocacher in the group to sign a team name. The "extra time and effort" is negligible.

 

If the point is to block divide-and-conquer cheating, then block that. Team names are not the same thing.

 

 

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

Luckily enough it's a logging streak and not a finding streak and whenever anyone from the team finds the cache the other present cachers (who are searching as well) may log it as found, too. Don't they?

In our team the first person to take out the logbook and finds a pen :D usually writes down all the names of the present team.

Sure, that's the "Three Musketeers" style of group caching, where everyone declares victory as soon as anyone in the group spots the hide. I prefer the "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style of group caching myself, where everyone is given a chance to spot the hide without the others spoiling it. But I've seen groups play both ways and sign everyone's names, and I've seen groups play both ways and sign a team name.

 

If the point is to block taking credit for a find when someone else in the group spotted the hide, then block that. Team names are not the same thing.

Link to comment

I just don't get the point. You know if you were there regardless of how the log was signed; you know if the find fills your personal criteria. But a team name isn't grounds for CO to delete a log or for a challenge cache owner to disqualify the streak. Anyone else can believe what they want, but

 

a) who cares;

b) they're not going to go through your physical logs unless they're complete nutjobs; and

c) they don't have to accept your name on the log as proof if they don't want to, no matter what your personal streak rules say. See a).

Edited by mustakorppi
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
On 3/2/2021 at 7:40 PM, BlueRajah said:

I would say many people that call these people cheaters would not be able to do it, or would not be able to without cheating.

 

That's right. And while I might not be 100% pure (replace a cache fix a cache there) I refuse to perform such a challenge as streaking for 1000's of days knowing it isn't true and then publicly claiming success. MY blanket statement is strictly referring to our geographically local streakers claiming a streaks on the order of 1000's of days.. 2000, 3000, and higher. I am not suggesting it isn't possible for someone to complete.. just that nearly all our locals with streaks this high HAVE cheated.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 3/6/2021 at 10:50 PM, barefootjeff said:

You don't have to be a "poor international flier" to lose a whole day. A flight from the USA to Australia will leave the west coast late evening on day X and arrive around dawn on the east coast of Australia on day X+2. At no point is there any opportunity to find a cache on day X+1, so yes, I can understand someone who's into a long streak but has to make such a flight for work purposes might want to make an allowance for it.

They might want to make allowances for it, but it seems like an obvious case of date shifting, so I don't see a reason to forgive it. Once you say it's OK for trips, you can just as well say...."If you're sick for a day or two, it's OK to shift dates, since obviously you can't cache on those dates." A major point of a streak is that you've successfully kept things like trips get in the way.

Link to comment
On 3/7/2021 at 4:24 PM, frostengel said:

so you want to say if you are caching with a team mate and he finds the cache you are not the person finding it so it does not help you with the streak?

 

"Someone else in my group found it first, then I saw where it was and personally signed the log."

vs

"I was with a group of people caching, one of who found and signed. I never personally saw the logsheet, the container, or where the container was hidden."

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

"Someone else in my group found it first, then I saw where it was and personally signed the log."

Yep, that sounds like "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" group caching.

 

29 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

"I was with a group of people caching, one of who found and signed. I never personally saw the logsheet, the container, or where the container was hidden."

Yep, that sounds like "Three Musketeers" group caching. Although it's something of a "worst case" scenario. When I've gone caching with groups that insisted on doing it "Three Musketeers" style, everyone saw the log and container, unless they deliberately looked away when they were being shown to everyone.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

"Someone else in my group found it first, then I saw where it was and personally signed the log."

vs

"I was with a group of people caching, one of who found and signed. I never personally saw the logsheet, the container, or where the container was hidden."

 

Someone finds the cache, calls "I got it." or something similar. The others join him: "Ah, it's hidden there. I looked there twice, why didn't I find it?"

The first finder has the box in his hands and searches for his pen. Someone says "I got one." and gets the logbook and signs it for everyone. Than he gives it back as the first one knows best how to hide it. Someone takes a photograph (that's usually my fathers job ;-)) of the hide.

 

I think that's somewhere in between. It's similar when visiting a mystery cache together which only one of the team solved. I want to solve it later or at least understand how it works - so I try to solve it on my own but am very ready to get help from the first solver.

 

It is never "my name is in the logbook the rest isn't important". I want to understand the whole task. :-)

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

"Someone else in my group found it first, then I saw where it was and personally signed the log."

vs

"I was with a group of people caching, one of who found and signed. I never personally saw the logsheet, the container, or where the container was hidden."

I don't deny there's a difference, I just don't consider it important. If I don't personally see the log or the container or even where the container was hidden, it's not because I was less involved in the hunt than if I'd been handed the log and signed it. It's just because dealing with the cache after it's found is such a minor part of the game, I'll give higher priority to enjoying the view or looking at the birds or planning the next leg of the excursion.

  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I don't deny there's a difference, I just don't consider it important. If I don't personally see the log or the container or even where the container was hidden, it's not because I was less involved in the hunt than if I'd been handed the log and signed it. It's just because dealing with the cache after it's found is such a minor part of the game, I'll give higher priority to enjoying the view or looking at the birds or planning the next leg of the excursion.

 

Yep.  We used to attend an annual event that was held in winter. Before the actual event, there was a "group" walk in the snow for caches.   :)

Some groups would have up to a dozen people, and most times there was one who stayed well-ahead of the group in a rush to find them.   

If we were towards the rear,  we had an idea where, but may not have seen the actual spot the container was found.

The person that found it usually wrote in that groups name too. 

I preferred that. 

If we wrote our name in too, we not only might have created a maintenance issue for every cache in the area, but maybe replaced it incorrectly.

We've always considered the container secondary to the location we were directed to (the "language of location").

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Some groups would have up to a dozen people, and most times there was one who stayed well-ahead of the group in a rush to find them.

 

In my experience more than about 4-6 people geocaching as a group becomes kind of pointless. When you've got about a dozen people the result is usually a few people geocaching and a lot of people going for a walk. The cache has usually been found, signed, and replaced before everyone reaches GZ.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The cache has usually been found, signed, and replaced before everyone reaches GZ.

 

That may even occur when the group consists only of two or three people. I am usually one of those with the most energy (as long as I am caching I have plenty of energy - as soon as I am back at home I sleep at the couch :-)) so what I have learned is patience. Waiting for the others before starting the search or before going the last 20 metres isn't too hard.

 

I fully agree with you that it shouldn't be too many people in a group but if that is the problem you are caching with the wrong persons - probably those who quickly sign the log to get to the next cache.... Take your time!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, dprovan said:
6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

"Someone else in my group found it first, then I saw where it was and personally signed the log."

vs

"I was with a group of people caching, one of who found and signed. I never personally saw the logsheet, the container, or where the container was hidden."

I don't deny there's a difference, I just don't consider it important. If I don't personally see the log or the container or even where the container was hidden, it's not because I was less involved in the hunt than if I'd been handed the log and signed it. It's just because dealing with the cache after it's found is such a minor part of the game, I'll give higher priority to enjoying the view or looking at the birds or planning the next leg of the excursion.

 

Yeah I think there's a level of deciding what's a "technicality" as it were to the find, when it comes to personal ethic. And likewise, if I'm with a group and I'm satisfied that I "found" the cache, even if someone else spotted it first and signed in, it's still a find to me. If I were to break it down, I'd probably say it's a matter of "would I have found it alone?" and "did I miss a special or new experience I think is essential to this geocache or its owner?" [such as a hands on field puzzle, or a physical accomplishment, eg]. And in some cases I may still log it found but mark it is "incomplete" in that maybe I don't know how to solve the puzzle, or I missed out on part of the experience; then I can return to it later, or be reminded that I didn't get the 'complete' find.

For me most of the time if there's a physical thing to do (like climb a tree) I'm usually the one to do it, or I do it even if someone else or two is also doing it. Or if it's diving into a cave and a few do it, I'll be in there.  If we're in a big group and only a few can, I will want to be in that few who do (and really I don't care any more if the people 'waiting outside' decide to log it themselves; that no longer bugs me - unless of course they're not anywhere near the area, which would constitute couch-logging, imo).

 

I have been known with my regular caching friends not to log a cache if. say, it was around the corner and someone else signed us in while getting gas or something like that and I wasn't there. Even if it was an LPC. I wasn't there or anywhere near, so why would I log it?  But if I was in the store and I can see in the lot the lamp the cache was at that someone in my group went to and signed us in, I'd log it found (it's more like a technicality that I walk over there just to get a 'closer look' or touch the container).

 

Anyway, point being, it is a personal ethic, and I think within those bounds of 'valid log' allowability, a person decides what's more like a technicality for them in deciding whether to log the cache found. And in my experience, the vast majority of people consider "I signed the physical logsheet myself with my own name" a technicality and don't adhere to that strict of a personal rule for claiming a find (even on a streak).  Of course, keeping that ethic isn't wrong, and it's rather impressive if done successfully! But it's also easy to become a snob about it if such a person begins to think anyone who doesn't live by the same ethic is "cheating". :P 

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 3/7/2021 at 1:08 AM, mustakorppi said:

I don’t get the dateline crossing allowance in a ruleset that is otherwise so strict. It’s really easy to know what calendar day it is wherever you are, and you either sign a log on that day or you don’t. But if you’re a poor international flier you get to misdate a find on purpose?

 

My streak ended at 937 days.  We had 30" of snow, and the governor closed down the state.  The trains were not running (or I would have tried for a parking lot cache near a train station.)  I did try for a parking lot cache within walking distance, but was unable to find it.  I did not find a cache that day.  My streak ended.  I would never have considered moving a cache I found to that day.  That would have been cheating.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Is  "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" a regional thing? I don't mean as a style of group caching, but rather the game from which the term is borrowed. I have never heard of it anywhere except on these forums.

Maybe. The parlor game goes by various names, some of which definitely seem to be regional.

 

I got the term (as applied to geocaching) from GeoLex, which is available through the WayBack Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170112211713/http://geolex.locusprime.net/

Link to comment
13 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Is  "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" a regional thing? I don't mean as a style of group caching, but rather the game from which the term is borrowed. I have never heard of it anywhere except on these forums.

I like how the Wikipedia article has the line:

Quote

A modern and more adult variation of Huckle Buckle Beanstalk is Geocaching.

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
14 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

In my experience more than about 4-6 people geocaching as a group becomes kind of pointless. When you've got about a dozen people the result is usually a few people geocaching and a lot of people going for a walk. The cache has usually been found, signed, and replaced before everyone reaches GZ.

Some days, I walk where there are no caches. How pointless is that?!

  • Funny 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Some days, I walk where there are no caches. How pointless is that?!

 

But there is a difference between walking (-> hiking, biking, whatever) without geocaching - of course that's possible and fun, too - and doing the same but while walking others write your name in a logbook and you log those caches later!?

 

Either I am out geocaching (than I want to participate in any way) - or I am not (than my nick name isn't written in any log book and I don't log any finds).

 

The post you commented on was about geocaching (and getting finds) without doing anything. Just being at the same place, let others find the cache and log it online later. And that's pointless for sure. It's not all about the numbers, is it?

 

To add: if we ride our bike up the hill and there's a cache under the bench after the climb the first one will probably take a seat and find the cache. He'll wait until the others arrive (the last one, too!) and show them the hide (and not log the other names, rehide the cache and everyone else proceeds without seeing this cache). That may happen at one or two caches but if the same person always sprinted forward and the cache was found as soon as I arrived I wouldn't go on a caching tour with that person anymore.

As I said: you need patience in such a case - always take care for the weakest part of the team (or hope the others do if you are this part :-)).

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, frostengel said:

The post you commented on was about geocaching (and getting finds) without doing anything. Just being at the same place, let others find the cache and log it online later. And that's pointless for sure. It's not all about the numbers, is it?

 

What's "without doing anything"? For some that's staying at home.  For others that's just being at/near gz. For others that's not being the one to hold and sign the logsheet. Who's to say? The line of reason is a hazy one, apart from the absolute "name on logsheet to claim a find". Most everyone would agree couch-logging is "not doing anything", and HQ would agree, with ample evidence of such a false find. But beyond that it becomes he-said-she-said, and HQ will tend to side with the logger, not the CO, if it seems reasonable that the logger was "there".  So we return to that "cheat scale" of subjectivity and personal ethic for what constitutes a find. If it's valid, just let it go, even if your ethic is stricter than someone else's.

Edited by thebruce0
clarity
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Presumably on those days you don't log any geocaches.

Of course not. As I say, completely pointless! Why do I do it?!!

 

3 hours ago, frostengel said:

The post you commented on was about geocaching (and getting finds) without doing anything. Just being at the same place, let others find the cache and log it online later. And that's pointless for sure. It's not all about the numbers, is it?

Saying it's pointless to do something is entirely different than saying what you did doesn't justify claiming the finds. I was sarcastically disagreeing with the post that said it was pointless to have a walk with a group of friends for the sole reason that you don't actually end up being involved in the searches.

 

But to respond to the point you heard him making: I could care less about the numbers. That's why I don't think twice about logging the caches: the numbers don't make any difference to me one way or the other. But logging the finds documents this geocaching trips with my friends, allowing me to describe my experience. The last thing on my mind is a concern about which searches I was involved in enough to satisfy your vague requirement for declaring my find is "legitimate" and what I'm doing is not pointless. We went caching together, we found caches. It was a group effort. I don't even think about my individual contributions.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

The last thing on my mind is a concern about which searches I was involved in enough to satisfy your vague requirement for declaring my find is "legitimate" and what I'm doing is not pointless. We went caching together, we found caches. It was a group effort. I don't even think about my individual contributions.

 

I wasn't talking about whether one person in the group usually located the cache first and another always searched in the wrong spot.

 

With a large group a portion of that group ends up never contributing to the search at all because the cache is found, signed, and replaced by the time they arrive. It's not a case of being involved "enough" but rather not being involved at all.  They had a good time walking in the woods with their friends, but they weren't geocaching. There can be exceptions, like difficult hides, but even then 6 people is usually enough to saturate GZ with eyeballs. (Large groups also often practice leapfrogging.)

 

See also the disdain for power trails, where one person drives the car but never actually gets out to search. Someone else hops out, signs, and hops back in. There are better ways to roadtrip with your friends.

 

You can have fun hanging out on a boat all day with your friends, but they cast lines and you don't they were fishing and you were just with people who were fishing. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

With a large group a portion of that group ends up never contributing to the search at all because the cache is found, signed, and replaced by the time they arrive. It's not a case of being involved "enough" but rather not being involved at all.  They had a good time walking in the woods with their friends, but they weren't geocaching. There can be exceptions, like difficult hides, but even then 6 people is usually enough to saturate GZ with eyeballs. (Large groups also often practice leapfrogging.)

 

With a lot of the group caching I've done, most of the challenge is in getting to GZ, with the search once there being fairly trivial. An extreme example no doubt, but with the group that accompanied me on my 1000th cache milestone (a T4.5) in 2019, we each took turns leading the way, helped each other up and down the difficult climbs and frequently collaborated on the best options for negotiating the trackless and challenging terrain. Spotting the cache once at GZ was a no-brainer as the CO had provided a spoiler photo showing exactly where it was hidden.

 

Since then, almost all the group caching trips I've been on have been hikes or kayak paddles where I'd either previously found or owned the targeted caches. At the GZ of each one I'd stand back and let the others make the find, but I'd like to think I contributed something to the adventure aside from just chatter along the way. For me, they've been some of the most enjoyable group caching outings I've done even though they contributed nothing to my find count.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 3/9/2021 at 5:45 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

In my experience more than about 4-6 people geocaching as a group becomes kind of pointless. When you've got about a dozen people the result is usually a few people geocaching and a lot of people going for a walk. The cache has usually been found, signed, and replaced before everyone reaches GZ.

 

That's usually what happens in events and they publish caches during that one. In the end, you are just enjoying the hike, since when you are with 15-20 people at least, it is quite probable that you will not participate in each search.

 

If this event is near your home, I would rather go another time and visit the caches and enjoy the complete experience, but... what should one do when those caches are 100-200 km away from your home? I suppose we shouldn't be so strict, but it depends on the person.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

See also the disdain for power trails, where one person drives the car but never actually gets out to search.

For the record, that is not the source of my disdain for numbers trails.

Link to comment
On 3/9/2021 at 11:40 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

Is  "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" a regional thing? I don't mean as a style of group caching, but rather the game from which the term is borrowed. I have never heard of it anywhere except on these forums.

 

I brought it up this weekend when I was with a group. None had heard of it. So, if it is a regional thing, that region is not Northern Virginia. (And I have also never experienced it outside the forums.)

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Similar to hzoi I guess,  we've asked people in PA, NY, and NJ, and none have heard of "huckle buckle..." or "three musketeers". 

 - But when explaining what each entails, everyone then knew what we were talking about, so we're good.    :)

We looked years ago in country sub-forums, and thought it might be a west coast thing.   

 

My longest streak was 11 days back in 2007, so I probably won't ever break that...

Link to comment
19 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I wasn't talking about whether one person in the group usually located the cache first and another always searched in the wrong spot.

 

With a large group a portion of that group ends up never contributing to the search at all because the cache is found, signed, and replaced by the time they arrive. It's not a case of being involved "enough" but rather not being involved at all.  They had a good time walking in the woods with their friends, but they weren't geocaching.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm disagreeing with you about. I was geocaching with my friends. It makes no difference to me whether I was 100% involved in every search or did not look for or touch a single cache. I'm not quibbling over details, I'm accepting your scenario as factual: I was behind the whole trip, chatting and enjoying the scenery. But I was still a member of the group, and I logged all the finds. And I could care less what you think about it.

 

By the way, I consider this important from two angles. We've been focused on the group vs. the individual, hence my position that as a member of the group, I'll claim all the finds whether I had anything to do with finding any caches. But actually I think it's even more important from the angle of trip vs. cache. The logic of your position requires it being applied cache by cache, so even if I am actively involved in most of the searches, if I lag behind for one cache and it's signed before I get there, I can't claim a find for that one cache because, by your definition, I wasn't geocaching at the moment. That's the part that makes me think the position is not merely logically dubious but, in practice, ridiculous.

 

19 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

See also the disdain for power trails, where one person drives the car but never actually gets out to search. Someone else hops out, signs, and hops back in. There are better ways to roadtrip with your friends.

This is a clear case where someone turns their disdain for power trails into a disdain for someone doing a power trail using accepted rules. I've never done a power trail, so I've never really given much thought to who can claim what, but, yes, I'd have to say I don't have any problem with drivers staying with the car, not bothering to look at any one of the monotonous hides, and still saying they were geocaching and claiming the finds. I have no problem with you following stricter rules for yourself, but I also say that your strict rules are just arbitrarily different from the rules of the driver who, after all, is doing most of the work to allow the other members of the team to sign the log.

  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

I brought it up this weekend when I was with a group. None had heard of it. So, if it is a regional thing, that region is not Northern Virginia. (And I have also never experienced it outside the forums.)

I have to admit that even though I live in the same area that niraD did until he recently moved away, I've never actually encountered anyone interested in caching Huckle Buckle Beanstalk style. I'm not actually sure I've heard about it except from niraD. So even calling it "regional" might be overstating it. I'm glad I've heard about and understand the possibility, but I've never had any interest in playing that way. At most, when I spot an particularly clever hide, I might step back and stop searching so the others I'm with can find it for themselves. But not for every cache. It takes long enough to find each cache with everyone looking!

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

With a lot of the group caching I've done, most of the challenge is in getting to GZ, with the search once there being fairly trivial.

 

It's pretty clear that caching in Australia is a different world from caching most other places.

 

26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

And I could care less what you think about it.

 

A curious attitude for someone participating in a discussion forum, a place where the whole point is to get other people's opinions.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

We don't say "huckle buckle beanstalk" around here either. I have to keep double checking which strategy it means when I see it mentioned here. And I just think it's way too much to say for a fairly common caching strategy :)

 

Edited by thebruce0
grammar
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

We don't say "huckle buckle beanstalk" around here either. I have keep to double checking which strategy it means when I see it mentioned here. And I just think it's way too much to say for a fairly common caching strategy :)

 

It was the "thing" for a while around here to "moo" after spotting the cache and moving away - I'm not sure how or why it started...

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

It was the "thing" for a while around here to "moo" after spotting the cache and moving away - I'm not sure how or why it started...

lol

For us it's still yelling "click". That originated from group night caching when anyone who spotted the cache would turn off their flashlight so as not to give away the precise location for others to find. All those clicks became vocal for anyone who didn't have a flashlight; or when caching in daylight :laughing:

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
2 hours ago, The Jester said:

It was the "thing" for a while around here to "moo" after spotting the cache and moving away - I'm not sure how or why it started...

lol

For us it's still yelling "click". That originated from group night caching when anyone who spotted the cache would turn off their flashlight so as not to give away the precise location for others to find. All those clicks became vocal for anyone who didn't have a flashlight; or when caching in daylight :laughing:

Most of the time, folks I've been geocaching with have said "Found it" or something similar. When I've used the phrases "Three Musketeers" and "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" to explain the different group caching styles, some have used phrases that might have been inspired by the phrase "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk", or that might be parodies of the phrase "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk".

 

For the record, I'm familiar with the game "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk", but I learned it by other names. I didn't learn the phrase "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" until I read about it in GeoLex. (See the link I posted earlier for the WayBack Machine's archive of GeoLex.)

Link to comment

Someone let me know I was mentioned in this topic.  If you have any questions, I'll answer them.  Here are some answers to start out with:

  • I started a streak just because I noticed I had found caches each day of the month, save for the first where I DNFed one and didn't find another.  Before then, I believe my longest was 28 days.  I wondered for how long I could keep it up, so decided to see.  This was before I heard of the term "streak".  I called it "cache-a-day".
  • I'm single, don't have a family, never dated, and don't have much of a social life.  I feel most people wonder how a streak is possible because they're thinking in that context.  That's not to say I don't have my own challenges.  For example, during haunted attraction season, I work 7AM - 4:30 PM, cache 5PM - 6PM, shoot a haunt 6:30PM - 1:30AM, and edit photos 2AM - 4AM.  If a convenient cache to a haunt is published in February, I just don't find it until October that year or the next or the year after.  It's that simple.  When I worked basketball games and tournaments, I usually finished around 9:30PM, so I'd find a cache somewhat convenient after that.  There was one time I had to work until 2AM with the team.  I took a slightly longer supper and found a convenient cache I was saving.  If it's forecast to snow, I'll drive somewhere and sit in the car until after midnight before I get out and look for the cache (were I to see the cache from the car, I'd have to count it at the time I saw it).  So I do have my challenges.
  • These days, the streak has a few purposes: force myself to get out and do something and make sure I continue to play the game.  For me, geocaching is synonymous to going out every day and finding something (since, even before the streak, I never missed too many days).
  • I could do a streak at first because it fit with my original rule: leave caches to find on a rainy day.  I believed caching out my area was a failure because I wouldn't have anything left to do if I wanted to find something and either not drive far or the weather was bad.
  • On average, I spend one to two hours every day to find one cache due to driving.  I likely have around fifty to a hundred convenient caches I could find and not spend too long.  However, those must be saved for a rainy day--in other words, when I either don't have time, don't want to spend the time, or there's bad weather.
  • Every now and then, I have really annoying days where I DNF three to five caches in a row because I attempt to look for neglected caches.  When that happens, I just want to find something to be done and over with it.  But I don't see the streak as a burden because it's forcing me to get outside and do something other than work.  So even when I'm frustrated about that and just want to have a relaxed evening and do nothing, I know what I'm actually doing is good for me.  I can get upset all I want, but it's good medicine, both for physical and mental health, so it must be taken.
  • I've never traveled across an ocean, so I've no need of my personal rule about that.  However, I created that rule to be fair.  I want my rule set to be as hard, demanding, and constraining as possible, but fair.  I don't hold anyone to anything because I don't care about anyone else's streak.  (To impress me, tell me a story.)  Remember, I'm doing this to force myself to get outside and continue being involved in this game, so I see the streak as part of my internal game-playing infrastructure--a means to an end.  Its value lies in what it does for me, not in its being an achievement.  Besides, there is someone in my area who wants to garner acknowledgement and praise for his streak.  I'll let him have that since he needs something to make him feel good.  He can keep up with the day numbers.  I can barely find the motivation to set aside time once a week or two or three to slog through the process of logging the finds.  Forget the streak: I'm impressed people can consistently log caches on the same day they found them.  By the time I'm done finding caches for a day, I'm done with caching.  I will not ever have a logging streak.
  • I came up with my rule set by talking to people and finding out what their rules and beliefs were.  If they came up with a sensible rule more restrictive than mine, I'd adopt it.  I'm bored enough that I want to play on hard mode.  That part about its being a physical cache came from this.  Later, someone suggested I write out all these rules I had acquired for myself.  I shrugged and said perhaps, some day, I would.
  • There was a time my area didn't even average 365 caches published a year.  That was hard.  It used to be some 1000/year, I'd guess.  These past four or five years have been skimpy.  I get by.
  • Do I want to stop the streak?  Well, there's a reason I'm doing this, so the answer would be if I wanted to stop forcing myself to leave work and go somewhere every evening.  No, I believe it's healthy to force oneself to disengage from things and just to do something relaxing for an hour or so every day even if you don't think you have time to do so.

I hope this answers some questions.  Though I'm slow to reply to topics outside the Wherigo forum, I'll reply if anyone asks something.  I hope I can either help or inspire someone if you really want to do something like this.  Other than that, a streak is nothing but simple strategy.  It's not that difficult to pull off in a somewhat active area--that's the part you can't control.  But I do feel like most people will fail if all you're getting out of it is a number of days for a streak.  Since there's a personal point to mine, I feel it's easier to do even on days when I want to be downright lazy.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...