New World Record - 413 geocache finds in ONE day

[+Cardinal Red]

Don't waste your time...

 

How about this.... I'll go find another place to find 450 caches in one day, and set another record !

 

On your next record run would you at least consider NOT using any stickers? I'm not saying stickers invalidate your accomplishment. It just cheapens it a little bit for me (I know, you just can't please some people ).

 

I do want to thank you for providing quite a bit of insight into the mechanics of a 400+ cache record run. There was a time I probably would have jumped at the chance to join a group of friends in such an endeavor. I now realize I wouldn't want to have any part of one. Just doesn't measure up to my standard of Geocaching fun.

[+traildad]

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.

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".

[knowschad]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

[+traildad]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

[knowschad]

I don't think anyone has accused anyone of "lying". There have been a few that were skeptical.

A HUGE difference. To make the leap from being a skeptic to an accusation of lying is, in itself, not cool.

One can be skeptical of something which someone claims they are going to do, until they've done it. One can be skeptical of something which people claim to have experienced, if the skepticism concerns whether or not the experience actually took place (if you think you've been abducted by aliens, and I think you dreamed it, for example). But when it comes to a concrete claim to have achieved something where nobody disagrees on the definition of what has allegedly been done, you can't be "skeptical", except if you're using the word "skeptical" as a euphemism; you can only say that you don't believe that it took place, and unless you're suggesting that the particpants are deluded, or had very slow watches, then you are accusing them of lying for all practical purposes. Certainly enough to get your nose punched by this guy.

 

Maybe nobody has actually used the "L" word in this thread (until I did). But if A tells B, with no hint of irony, winking, or suggestion of embellishment, that A has just achieved "X", and B then starts to discuss, in public and in front of A, why they consider "X" to be clearly mechanically impossible - not "an amazing performance", but "dude, I have done the math (and there is no way you could have done that)" - then B *is* accusing A of lying, to all intents and purposes.

 

 

I totally agree with you. I recently had a similar discussion on a local forum, but you put it much more succinctly. I don't see how anyone can say that they are "sketpical" without also calling these folks liars. They are just beating around the bush. Or, at the very least, they are saying that those that claim to have accomplished this feat are guilty until proven innocent.

[+WRASTRO]

The 400+ caching day is certainly not my style but I applaud those who have taken the time and energy to plan the outing and execute the adventure. As we always said in Boy Scouts - planning and execution make for a successful outing. Well done.

[+tozainamboku]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

[+WRASTRO]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

[GOF and Bacall]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

It may or may not be well said, I won't speculate on that at this time. My question is what did it have to do with the quoted posts?

[knowschad]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

True, except that it doesn't have to be one or the other. When I go caching with my powercaching, Type-A personality friend, Bobcam, we follow "The List" (as he calls it) to the letter. And that gets numbers. I've also gone out by myself a few times with my own carefully concocted "The List" and have had very high counts.

 

 

But I also have days when I do a multi that takes me through many little-known historic sites in a county. I've done caches where I hiked for miles for one cache (or one DNF as well). There is nothing wrong with variety, and I think that is one thing that is often forgotten in this forum. I can find the occasional LPC... no problem, but if that is all there is, I'm quitting. I don't mind micros, but a small or regular gives me a place to move trackables, and lets others, that want to, swap swag. Shades of gray are OK.

[+ventura_kids]

Where the heck is my thread heading?

 

Did you see that we set a new World Record?

413 finds in one day!

 

I just checked my found logs to see if the caches were all the same.

I don' t recall any lamposts, but I'm sure we had a guardrail or 2. There were an assortment of Nano's out there too. Most of the rural ones on the dirt roads were hidden at the bottom of posts and poles. There were some rock hides and some bush hides. There were bisons hanging on wires, and signs. There were a couple of cattle gates (1 we dnf'd), and a dozen or so trees. We found 2 travelbug hotels during our World Record Speed caching run, and looked for 2 puzzles (1 found, 1dnf)

We had our travelbugs and geocoins ready to trade out in the travelbug hotels. We looked for caches in the dark, in the light, and in the dark. We searched in short grass, sunflowers, plain dirt, and many in weeds taller than us. We used flashlights, headlamps, and the jeeps headlights. We drove on highspeed highways, tar roads, gravel roads, dirt roads, and a couple of times the bushes in the middle of the 2 dirt tire trails were dragging under the jeep as the road sorta ended into just open fields. I don't remember going thru any rivers.

We saw airplanes and even a combine. We even found a gpsr from a local cacher left at a cache (and returned it to them)...

....and we followed the list.

Edited September 13, 2009 by ventura_kids

[+Sagefox]

...If anyone was going to bother with faking something like this it would be people who have what it takes to become 10k cachers.

 

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.

 

You really have to care to do that.

 

What your really have to do is move quickly and continuously for 24 hrs to do that. Very few of us can do that.

 

You could have several cachers all out on the same night "finding" caches on their own and putting the group sticker on the log.

 

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.

 

I DO NOT accuse them of anything. I only say that it is possible to fake something like this.

 

That is very easy to say about any goal anyone has achieved.

 

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.

[knowschad]

Where the heck is my thread heading?

 

Did you see that we set a new World Record?

413 finds in one day!

 

I just checked my found logs to see if the caches were all the same.

I don' t recall any lamposts, but I'm sure we had a guardrail or 2. There were an assortment of Nano's out there too. Most of the rural ones on the dirt roads were hidden at the bottom of posts and poles. There were some rock hides and some bush hides. There were bisons hanging on wires, and signs. There were a couple of cattle gates (1 we dnf'd), and a dozen or so trees. We found 2 travelbug hotels during our World Record Speed caching run, and looked for 2 puzzles (1 found, 1dnf)

We had our travelbugs and geocoins ready to trade out in the travelbug hotels. We looked for caches in the dark, in the light, and in the dark. We searched in short grass, sunflowers, plain dirt, and many in weeds taller than us. We used flashlights, headlamps, and the jeeps headlights. We drove on highspeed highways, tar roads, gravel roads, dirt roads, and a couple of times the bushes in the middle of the 2 dirt tire trails were dragging under the jeep as the road sorta ended into just open fields. I don't remember going thru any rivers.

We saw airplanes and even a combine. We even found a gpsr from a local cacher left at a cache (and returned it to them)...

....and we followed the list.

 

 

I haven't explicitly said this yet, so I will now... congratulations on your accomplishment, I commend you on going out of your way to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and I totally believe that you did it. (I also believe that it sucks to be you, at least in that 24 hour period, but that's just me)

[+coreynjoey]

WTG!! You made a plan, executed it, and accomplished what you set out to do....and had fun doing it. Well done!!

[4x4van]

Party of the first part "I did something"

 

Party of the second part "I don't think you did. Here's some math that proves that you couldn't have, or that it's not very likely"

 

Yup, that's calling him a liar!

 

To publicly dispute someone's word without reason, evidence or cause is what's not cool

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.

[knowschad]

Party of the first part "I did something"

 

Party of the second part "I don't think you did. Here's some math that proves that you couldn't have, or that it's not very likely"

 

Yup, that's calling him a liar!

 

To publicly dispute someone's word without reason, evidence or cause is what's not cool

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.

 

 

Webster's dictionary:

Improbable, adj. not likely to occur.

 

Skeptical, adj. to doubt or question.

 

 

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.

Edited September 13, 2009 by knowschad

[+tozainamboku]

Party of the first part "I did something"

 

Party of the second part "I don't think you did. Here's some math that proves that you couldn't have, or that it's not very likely"

 

Yup, that's calling him a liar!

 

To publicly dispute someone's word without reason, evidence or cause is what's not cool

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.

I don't see where your numbers gives any probability that this number of finds in 24 hour could or could not be achieved. At best it shows that this is difficult to do. By your own admission, your numbers show it is possible.

 

People accomplish difficult things all the time. People who doubt that others can accomplish difficult tasks are not called skeptics they are called cynics.

Edited September 13, 2009 by tozainamboku

[4x4van]

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.

 

"doubt or question" is the definition of skepticism, not a lie. But if that's how you want to look at it , I guess that's your right.

 

There are plenty of things in this world that I am not sure of. Things that I don't know as fact. Things that I wonder about. Things that have not been proven. Things that I have not personally seen. Does that mean I consider them all lies? Of course not. There are things that are improbable, but do occur. At the same time, there are things that are highly likely but don't occur. I would never be so presumptious to claim that I am "all knowing" and can tell whether everything in the world is true or false, black or white. Sometimes I just don't know.

 

But evidently, you do. After all, you know what I "mean", rather than what I "say", right? And to think that I was under the impression that I should know what I mean. Thank you for setting me straight.

[4x4van]

People who doubt that others can accomplish difficult tasks are not called skeptics they are called cynics.

 

Wrong.

 

Webster's:

Cynic, n. one who believes that all people have selfish motives.

 

A claim I never made.

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

 

If you go back to the post in which I was referring to, you'll see the person makes a comment that a cacher who has over 10,000 finds has a sort of six sense where to find them and therefore is alot quicker than the guy with a couple hundred. As I stated, granted that is kinda of true in some ways, but at the same time, they need to get to all of those places. I got the picture long before you mentioned it; but even in that case, a cacher who has 10,000 finds doesn't matter because the way you state it, my 10 year old daughter should be able to find the hides as you have listed it. It the challenge is to be able to move quickly, stay awake and not throw up then that isn't geocaching, that's describes a bunch of college parties I was a part of.

 

I am not knocking them for what they did. Sounds like fun to me, but whether you are for them or against them everyone needs to realize that it is not that big of deal to waste time and breath on the forums arguing about it. Pat them on the back, say good job, and if you don't like it, well then walk away. Let them have their celebration that truly isn't hurting anyone. I haven't had someone call me and tell me that I am less of a cacher because of what this group did. All in all it doesn't affect anyone except for them and I am glad they had fun doing it because that is what caching is supposed to be all about.

[+Clarkbowman]

Reading everything here, to me it sounds like they did it, So Great Job!

I did read one post that does make sense though about a world record. And the problem of recording them, each run made are totally different the one before. Not really apples to apples. I think if the was every to be a true record set. It would have to be a series that any team could go after and attempt to break any one set before it. Which I think would be near impossible to set up, though I have started plans on putting one together. If it works, I have no clue at this time. I am working on making it a week long event with teams leaving every 12 hours. With 600 caches placed for it. Call me crazy all you want. I already know I am.

The rules this team used for the run are a good set from my point of view and the terrain seamed to favor the run compared to anything I have seen here in the South East.

 

That being said the feet accomplished here is still top notch and a great accomplishment along with a long DAYYYYYY of Caching.

Again Great Work.

[+Ladybug Kids]

Congratulations Ventura Kids, EMC of Northridge, CA , and f0t0m0m!

 

I've cached around DIA a couple of times under the duress of needing to catch a flight and have solo bursts averaging between 2-4 minutes per cache. I've done the same with NorthWes and Scobey in Palm Springs and Temecula, California. None of the efforts were sustained for more than an hour or so before we got distracted chasing caches with a view or requiring a longer walk or spending time enjoying a local pointout, or had to quit to catch that plane. However, I/we matched the pace despite being unfamiliar with the area and not having done a lot of planning beyond obtaining PQs for the area and mapping them. In many cases, the person on the right-hand side of the car would have the cache in hand before the person in the left-hand side of the car got to ground zero. Try it...pick a straight stretch of a low traffic road with a high cache density, take a deep breath, and see how many you can find in 30-60 minutes.

 

I've cached with uber cachers in the past and it's amazing how ruthlessly efficient they are at finding caches. I've found myself running to be first to ground zero and it doesn't matter...I can be looking hard and the more experienced cacher walks up and says "here it is," makes the grab, and is off in a cloud of dust. Pushing like that for 24 hours is the truly amazing part, but with a designated driver, navigator, and a pair of finders all working together, I can see it coming together.

 

These numbers runs are all relative. Local cachers will talk about how hard it is to get twenty or so caches in a day, yet I've done that many on a weekday evening trail running with my dogs.

 

Again, congratulations!

[+sTeamTraen]

Ah, the thread has reached the "Webster's moment".

 

In my experience, when people resort to quoting the dictionary definition of a word to prove their point, it's because they are generally on pretty shaky ground otherwise, and they're hoping that semantic arguments can save them from what everybody else knows what they really meant.

[+tozainamboku]

It the challenge is to be able to move quickly, stay awake and not throw up then that isn't geocaching, ...

It comes down to what you define as geocaching. Obviously there are some people who couldn't imaging how a 24 run to find as many caches as you can could be geocaching. To them geocaching is "about the journey" or "about visiting interesting places" or even "about finding a challenging well hidden cache". If your definition of geocaching doesn't include staying awake for 24+ hours straight, driving 471.5 miles, and finding a bunch of 35 mm film cans hanging on highway or buried cable signs, then what they did was not a geocaching record and you really don't have much to add except maybe to claim this whole thread is off topic.

 

This had now become a debate over whether or not rocky road is ice cream or a mixture of chocolate ice cream with marshmallow and peanuts. I see the rules for some ice cream eating contests state that only vanilla be eaten.

http://www.covermaxcomm.com/icecream/

 

[+Team Cotati]

It the challenge is to be able to move quickly, stay awake and not throw up then that isn't geocaching, ...

It comes down to what you define as geocaching. Obviously there are some people who couldn't imaging how a 24 run to find as many caches as you can could be geocaching. To them geocaching is "about the journey" or "about visiting interesting places" or even "about finding a challenging well hidden cache". If your definition of geocaching doesn't include staying awake for 24+ hours straight, driving 471.5 miles, and finding a bunch of 35 mm film cans hanging on highway or buried cable signs, then what they did was not a geocaching record and you really don't have much to add except maybe to claim this whole thread is off topic.

 

This had now become a debate over whether or not rocky road is ice cream or a mixture of chocolate ice cream with marshmallow and peanuts. I see the rules for some ice cream eating contests state that only vanilla be eaten.

http://www.covermaxcomm.com/icecream/

 

 

There is no record.

 

I prefer rocky road over vanilla.

 

There is still no record.

[4x4van]

Ah, the thread has reached the "Webster's moment".

 

In my experience, when people resort to quoting the dictionary definition of a word to prove their point, it's because they are generally on pretty shaky ground otherwise, and they're hoping that semantic arguments can save them from what everybody else knows what they really meant.

And in my experience. when people insist on re-writing the definition of a known word to prove their point, it's because they are generally on pretty shaky ground otherwise. Once again, you assume to know what I meant, rather than listening to what I said. It must be nice to have the ability to read minds.

 

What's ironic is the fact that you don't know that the feat was fact either. You weren't there, so it is only your opinion. No different than my opinion. Last time I checked, we (myself included) were all allowed to have an opinion. If that has changed, sorry, I missed the memo. Attacking or insulting me (or trying to tell me what I really mean) does nothing to change my opinion, other than perhaps my opinion of you.

 

Since this is degenerating into an argument of the validity of opinions and definitions, I refuse to be dragged any further down the hole. I'm outta here.

[+ecanderson]

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.

 

Again, the only reason that your math leads you to use this word is that the input variables to your function are in error. You cannot BEGIN to appreciate what a silly circus it is out east of Denver International without doing the least bit of homework on the target area.

 

Yes, your math shows it is improbable. As we used to say in the business, GIGO - even when the actual computation is 100% proper.

 

You and others have approached this topic while not fully understanding either the nature of the area or the caches involved. I suspect some haven't even really looked at the gc.com map of the area. Unless and until some of you folks are willing to visit this area, you're not in a position to argue with those of us who live out here and know it well enough to correct the problem parameters that keep getting injected into this "math".

[+ecanderson]

What's ironic is the fact that you don't know that the feat was fact either. You weren't there, so it is only your opinion. No different than my opinion.

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.

[+traildad]

No offense, but the first statement there about the 10,000+ cacher is sorta....well...nonsense. Yes, they are going to be more experience, but they still have to get to GZ.

 

 

 

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.

[+traildad]

Where the heck is my thread heading?

 

Did you see that we set a new World Record?

413 finds in one day!

 

I just checked my found logs to see if the caches were all the same.

I don' t recall any lamposts, but I'm sure we had a guardrail or 2. There were an assortment of Nano's out there too. Most of the rural ones on the dirt roads were hidden at the bottom of posts and poles. There were some rock hides and some bush hides. There were bisons hanging on wires, and signs. There were a couple of cattle gates (1 we dnf'd), and a dozen or so trees. We found 2 travelbug hotels during our World Record Speed caching run, and looked for 2 puzzles (1 found, 1dnf)

We had our travelbugs and geocoins ready to trade out in the travelbug hotels. We looked for caches in the dark, in the light, and in the dark. We searched in short grass, sunflowers, plain dirt, and many in weeds taller than us. We used flashlights, headlamps, and the jeeps headlights. We drove on highspeed highways, tar roads, gravel roads, dirt roads, and a couple of times the bushes in the middle of the 2 dirt tire trails were dragging under the jeep as the road sorta ended into just open fields. I don't remember going thru any rivers.

We saw airplanes and even a combine. We even found a gpsr from a local cacher left at a cache (and returned it to them)...

....and we followed the list.

"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?

[+ecanderson]

Do they just lay caches out in plain sight over there?

I assume that as you ask this question, you've read my own description of the area in my prior posts here.

 

In the area in question, they might as well be in plain sight, because for the majority, you can predict the exact "hiding" spot for the cache as you are driving up to the location. No, they're not on the front side of the fiber and gas marker posts, they're typically right behind them. I guess that makes them 1.5's per the COs out there, but yes, I'd call them 1.0s. So yes, you're getting the picture. Most of the caches in this area were placed with ZERO thought as to the quality of the hides themselves. The COs clearly never had that in mind, whatever their objectives in the placements.

 

My original reason for my run out there was primarily to search for the few interesting ones out there like "Control Tower View" placed by GHP. It wasn't until I hit the area that I realized what was going on. So yes, not all of the caches in the area are totally brain dead "35 can + marker" variety. I've looked at some of the team logs and I have noted that the team did DNF several that would have taken more than a minute to find even with a team effort. Their objective was clearly a numbers run and nothing more. When I found my 52 caches out there (solo) in 3-1/2 hours, I didn't even cherry pick, and took the time necessary to find the few more difficult caches that were available.

[+traildad]

...If anyone was going to bother with faking something like this it would be people who have what it takes to become 10k cachers.

 

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.

You really have to care to do that.

 

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.

 

You could have several cachers all out on the same night "finding" caches on their own and putting the group sticker on the log.

 

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.

 

I DO NOT accuse them of anything. I only say that it is possible to fake something like this.

 

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.

[+traildad]

Party of the first part "I did something"

 

Party of the second part "I don't think you did. Here's some math that proves that you couldn't have, or that it's not very likely"

 

Yup, that's calling him a liar!

 

To publicly dispute someone's word without reason, evidence or cause is what's not cool

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.

[+Team Cotati]

Do they just lay caches out in plain sight over there?

I assume that as you ask this question, you've read my own description of the area in my prior posts here.

 

In the area in question, they might as well be in plain sight, because for the majority, you can predict the exact "hiding" spot for the cache as you are driving up to the location. No, they're not on the front side of the fiber and gas marker posts, they're typically right behind them. I guess that makes them 1.5's per the COs out there, but yes, I'd call them 1.0s. So yes, you're getting the picture. Most of the caches in this area were placed with ZERO thought as to the quality of the hides themselves. The COs clearly never had that in mind, whatever their objectives in the placements.

 

My original reason for my run out there was primarily to search for the few interesting ones out there like "Control Tower View" placed by GHP. It wasn't until I hit the area that I realized what was going on. So yes, not all of the caches in the area are totally brain dead "35 can + marker" variety. I've looked at some of the team logs and I have noted that the team did DNF several that would have taken more than a minute to find even with a team effort. Their objective was clearly a numbers run and nothing more. When I found my 52 caches out there (solo) in 3-1/2 hours, I didn't even cherry pick, and took the time necessary to find the few more difficult caches that were available.

 

Have you checked the record book? You might have inadvertently established a new record for the most caches found, solo, not cherry picking, in 210 minutes.

[+wimseyguy]

Don't waste your time...

 

How about this.... I'll go find another place to find 450 caches in one day, and set another record !

Cool, can I tag along?

[+traildad]

Party of the first part "I did something"

 

Party of the second part "I don't think you did. Here's some math that proves that you couldn't have, or that it's not very likely"

 

Yup, that's calling him a liar!

 

To publicly dispute someone's word without reason, evidence or cause is what's not cool

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.

 

 

Webster's dictionary:

Improbable, adj. not likely to occur.

 

Skeptical, adj. to doubt or question.

 

 

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.

[+traildad]

What's ironic is the fact that you don't know that the feat was fact either. You weren't there, so it is only your opinion. No different than my opinion.

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.

[+ecanderson]

 

Have you checked the record book? You might have inadvertently established a new record for the most caches found, solo, not cherry picking, in 210 minutes.

Could be, but you can bet I won't be out looking for the other 350!

 

GHP (aka Grand High Pobah, a local cacher of some renown, general nice guy, and owner of the cacherstats.com page) has a few decent ones out there that require some thought and effort. I need to run a filtered PQ on the area to see if I need to make another run for any of those that might have cropped up since January. The lack of filtering is how I got so distracted the last time. Nearly didn't get one of the GHP caches I wanted due to darkness. Called it a day after that one.

 

Actually, that brings me to an idea. I already have a PQ set up more or less centered in the general area where Ventura company were working. I'll modify it a bit and see what comes up...

 

......

 

OK - using GC1PA95 as the center of part of the high density area as a starting point:

 

If difficulty is 1.0 or greater = 143 caches

If difficulty is 2.0 or greater = 11 caches

 

Gives a sense of the difficulty ratio out there, doesn't it?

[+Sagefox]

 

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.

 

 

This is where I usually say that typically, most cachers have about 10% of their finds in the moderate-and-up difficulty caches (source: Fizzzymagic and INABTN programs and forum topics requesting that information).

 

A 10k cacher typically will have over 1000 difficult finds. A cacher with 500 finds, even if 25% of those finds are of moderate-and-up difficulty will have found around 125 of these caches. The high numbers folks almost always have more difficult (and interesting) cache finds then anyone who "specializes" in these tougher caches. You could say that they ARE playing the same game many of us are but they are playing an additional numbers game on top of it.

 

I am thinking that because some folks don't like the game they perceive the high numbers cachers are playing they are inclined to discount what they say about high numbers of finds in one day. I don't know if that is true for you, or not.

[+tozainamboku]

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 know the dictionary quoting puritans will only accept the original meaning of cynic. But it may in fact be the correct one here. A skeptic will say "This task seems one that is unlikely to be doable based on my experience. Provide some proof and I will accept it." Explanations have been given as to why this is a doable albeit difficult task. The accepted proof in Geocaching is that you sign the logs. Stickers are accepted by most people as a signature. There may be a few puritans that will say a sticker is too easy to cheat with and they won't accept stickers. If that is your stand then these people did not find 413 caches.

 

The cynic will say "People are motivated by self interest. Nobody would be that interested in staying awake 24 hours, driving 417.5 miles to find 413 easy caches. I know because I'm a geocacher, and I wouldn't have fun doing it. I don't care what proof you give because I can always find a reason to doubt your proof. It is obvious that anyone whose would be motivated to do a 24 run like this would be more likely to say 'lets just make up a number and see if we can get people to believe it'." Since the cynic can see no advantage in doing a 24 hour cache run, the only conclusion is that anyone who claims to have done this is lying about it.

[+sTeamTraen]

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.

Perhaps you could tell us what would constitute proof for you?

[+niraD]

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.

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.

 

A geocaching record that involves hundreds of that kind of cache is a "geocaching" record in name only.

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?

 

It is just a different game than the one I play.

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.

[+traildad]

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.

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.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Why don't you guys take traildad along when you go for 450?

 

traildad, would you go if invited?

[+traildad]

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.

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.

 

A geocaching record that involves hundreds of that kind of cache is a "geocaching" record in name only.

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?

 

It is just a different game than the one I play.

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.

[+traildad]

Reading everything here, to me it sounds like they did it, So Great Job!

I did read one post that does make sense though about a world record. And the problem of recording them, each run made are totally different the one before. Not really apples to apples. I think if the was every to be a true record set. It would have to be a series that any team could go after and attempt to break any one set before it. Which I think would be near impossible to set up, though I have started plans on putting one together. If it works, I have no clue at this time. I am working on making it a week long event with teams leaving every 12 hours. With 600 caches placed for it. Call me crazy all you want. I already know I am.

The rules this team used for the run are a good set from my point of view and the terrain seamed to favor the run compared to anything I have seen here in the South East.

 

That being said the feet accomplished here is still top notch and a great accomplishment along with a long DAYYYYYY of Caching.

Again Great Work.

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.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Why don't you guys take traildad along when you go for 450?

 

traildad, would you go if invited?

 

Two replies but none to my question.

 

Naked Guy, are you willing to ride along in the back with a camera for the attempt at 450?

(Don't know if they'd insist on you putting a shirt on or not, I don't know any of them from Adam's off mule).

 

4x4, sounds like you're close?

 

Y'all don't have to log them if you don't want to...

Edited September 14, 2009 by Jumpin' Jack Cache

[+ecanderson]

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.

Just read back a page or two for my post in this regard. I live in the record holders' "target area".

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

 

 

 

 

Does it even matter any more? Everyone has had thier say on this. Some believe, some don't. Some are for, some are against. Some like peanut butter, some like chocolate.

 

Can't we just all give it a rest? Let them have their claim, either way if it is true or if it isn't, it doesn't matter to those who don't care. Over all, the beating of the dead horse just gets blood on everyone and makes for a very ugly conversation on the forums....

[+coreynjoey]

Don't waste your time...

 

How about this.... I'll go find another place to find 450 caches in one day, and set another record !

Cool, can I tag along?

Oh, me too!!