# New World Record - 1157 geocache finds in 24 hours

Followers 9

## Recommended Posts

These so called records for caches found in 24 hours are bogus-

Do the math. Take the number 1157. That is about one cache every 45 seconds, some of which had to have been done at night with a falshlight. THe claim is 24 hours. There is not way four people can find that many cache's that fast if theyu are all getting of the car to find the cache. Even if only one person got out whith a rubber stamp with all of the cachers names on the stamp, one person could not maintain a rate of 45 seconds percache. Think about it, It take so much time to get out of the car, then the time to find the cache, then the time to open the container, then the time to stamp the four names onto the log with the rubber stamp, then the time to put the log baci into the container, then the time to replace the cache, then the time to get back into the car, then the time to drive to the next cache. It can not be done, these world record 24 hours searches are fake.

1157 (24 hrs)

And this from someone who hasn't even been there

These so called records for caches found in 24 hours are bogus-

Do the math. Take the number 1157. That is about one cache every 45 seconds, some of which had to have been done at night with a falshlight. THe claim is 24 hours. There is not way four people can find that many cache's that fast if theyu are all getting of the car to find the cache. Even if only one person got out whith a rubber stamp with all of the cachers names on the stamp, one person could not maintain a rate of 45 seconds percache. Think about it, It take so much time to get out of the car, then the time to find the cache, then the time to open the container, then the time to stamp the four names onto the log with the rubber stamp, then the time to put the log baci into the container, then the time to replace the cache, then the time to get back into the car, then the time to drive to the next cache. It can not be done, these world record 24 hours searches are fake.

1157 (24 hrs)

Let's see 24 X 60 = 1440 mins in 24 hrs. 1440 divided by 1057 = 1.36 min per cache.

Pray tell, how does one do that? inquiring minds want to know.

These so called records for caches found in 24 hours are bogus-

Do the math. Take the number 1157. That is about one cache every 45 seconds, some of which had to have been done at night with a falshlight. THe claim is 24 hours. There is not way four people can find that many cache's that fast if theyu are all getting of the car to find the cache. Even if only one person got out whith a rubber stamp with all of the cachers names on the stamp, one person could not maintain a rate of 45 seconds percache. Think about it, It take so much time to get out of the car, then the time to find the cache, then the time to open the container, then the time to stamp the four names onto the log with the rubber stamp, then the time to put the log baci into the container, then the time to replace the cache, then the time to get back into the car, then the time to drive to the next cache. It can not be done, these world record 24 hours searches are fake.

1157 (24 hrs)

Let's see 24 X 60 = 1440 mins in 24 hrs. 1440 divided by 1057 = 1.36 min per cache.

Pray tell, how does one do that? inquiring minds want to know.

The math proves that it is possible. Never underestimate the human ability to endure monotony in the pursuit of perceived fame.

We should thank those crazy geocache hiders that made this epic journey available to cachers from all over the world.

I thank them for turning the sport into more of a numbers game than it already was, taking it as far from its original intent as possible and for endangering its future.

These so called records for caches found in 24 hours are bogus-

Do the math. Take the number 1157. That is about one cache every 45 seconds, some of which had to have been done at night with a falshlight. THe claim is 24 hours. There is not way four people can find that many cache's that fast if theyu are all getting of the car to find the cache. Even if only one person got out whith a rubber stamp with all of the cachers names on the stamp, one person could not maintain a rate of 45 seconds percache. Think about it, It take so much time to get out of the car, then the time to find the cache, then the time to open the container, then the time to stamp the four names onto the log with the rubber stamp, then the time to put the log baci into the container, then the time to replace the cache, then the time to get back into the car, then the time to drive to the next cache. It can not be done, these world record 24 hours searches are fake.

1157 (24 hrs)

It's real.

It's a World Record !

It's not supposed to be simple. It's supposed to be nearly impossible.

Now where did I put that YouTube video of geocachers finding and logging a cache in 45 seconds?

My two cents...

For those who say it isn't possible:

When you've just spent three hours in the woods or 20 minutes looking for an urban cache, this feat will seem impossible. When you've been out on a country road grabbing some semblance of a power trail, it quickly becomes apparent that these caches can be found quickly.

These caches are only a few hundred feet apart and you barely need a GPS. The GZ is often identifiable 200-300 feet away. This CAN be done in the time allowed.

If you read through some of the logs on the Alien trail you'll see that many people rack up numbers at similar rate. What differentiates them from the Ventura_Kids is stamina. It's very tiring to continue to climb in and out of vehicles, cross ditches, and bend up/down over a short period, let alone 24-hours. This is an amazing endurance feat.

For those who say it is ruining the sport:

This is a different sport which shares the same name. It's physical marathon event that requires teamwork, preparation, coordination, time, desire, stamina, and perhaps a little mental insanity. It's obvious from reading the logs that the people who do power trails really enjoy the challenge and the experience. Just as there are those who enjoy ultra-marathons and Death Valley runs. (Crazy people.)

'Speed geocaching' (my term) has little in common from the traditional geocaching though they are both called "geocaching". Geocaching is a varied sport where the cacher can choose to hike in the woods, solve puzzles, walk urban trails, find LPC's, or speed cache. It's up to the cacher to determine what they enjoy and follow their passion. What one does has no impact on what the others choose to do.

Variety is the spice of life.

Congrats to the Ventura_Kids for the accomplishment and congratulations to those who spent six hours hiking to a beautiful spot, far in the woods, to grab the ammo can.

When we did the first 300 last monday we averaged 37 an hour, that included about 1/2 hour lunch break,

and 5 to 10 minute breaks about every 2 hours to let Rufus out to stretch his legs and check and leave pmail. Will we go back to finish the trail, I doubt it, it was fun but tiring.

We did this 100 Hemet cache run about a month ago and really had fun doing it it took us most of the day to finish it, and was much more enjoyable to us. But every one has their own idea of fun

I think that people who argue that geocaching is a sport and then turn around and claim that people who want to run records somehow endanger the sport likely don't believe their own arguments.

Just in from a caching run which included the west end of the E.T. Trail. I wish to have accolades and my LONGEST TIME TO COMPLETE TROPHY sent to the looney bin at the old folks home where my beaten and battered body lies in a crumpled quivering heap.

Cut into the Sierra's at Mariposa, transited through Yosemite National Park via 140 / 120 and into Lee Vining, thence along the north shore of Mono Lake and joining Hwy 6 @ Benton, Calif. continuing north to the Hwy 95 junction at Coaldale, Nv. thence southerly through Tonopah, Nv and on to the Hwy 375 junction at Warm Springs, Nv. transited to the 93 Junction near Crystal Springs, Nv. then south through Ash Springs to Windmill Ridge just north of Alamo, Nv.

The journey east along 375 at the dusk to night confluence saw the team dodging range cattle for 80 of the 111 mile stretch. Two nights later we had a very near miss with a sauntering bovine. ( filled our trousers and the car seats with a brown gooey substance ) The caching experience: well, those who have been on the trail have shared a very unique experience.

The return trip was again up and over the Tioga Pass > 9.900 feet only this time we had snow. Got to love Calif. surf to mountain peaks, deserts to alpine conditions in a few short miles. Oh --- and just beyond the Cali. border Nevada with a monster caching run. Many Thanks to the cache owners for a major undertaking. Thanks as well for the opportunity to finish LAST ... a temporary place of honor I am sure ... this trail has a way of poking at you.

I will be back in the Region in the spring to explore some more.

Started mid July > Completed mid Oct.

This series and other smaller drive by series in the UK like the Skeg to Ness series (230 or so caches) have altered my attitude to caching for good. I used to like trying to move up the rankings even though I am normally a very logical person and know this really is meaningless as all caches don't require the same effort. As time went on in the UK, power trails separated by only 200m or so have become more common. Still I'm up for a good long walk so was sort of happy to do these despite knowing they meant that numbers were meaning less and less. The final straw has been the realisation that if I want to continue to move up the rankings now I have to sit in my car all day. Many of the top UK numbers cachers are apparently happy to do this and at least 3 have already completed the Alien trail. I am not and have finally seen the futility of these rankings. In many ways this has done me a big favour as I am now focussing a lot more time on what should be my main hobby chess. In other ways it has done me a big disservice as I am not getting outdoors anywhere near as much. For all the apparent faults of number chasing, many people do enjoy this aspect. I wonder whether a lot will disregard this as I have done and lose interest in caching. I think it is a somewhat risky decision by Groundspeak not to enforce their own saturation rules in this and other series.

Looking on the bright side hopefully I can now just do only the caches I want to, rather than stopping somewhere for the sole intention of getting one more find. Many (if not the majority?) of people do cache in this way and I have always respected them for approaching caching this way.

Let the fun continue….

Caching for numbers is not geocaching? If you think its not then just go out and make finds but don’t log them. How many of you that object to the counting of numbers know exactly how many you have found and included it in your posted messages in this thread? If you were not concerned about numbers then why is the ET so upsetting? You can always add to your profile that you do not “Power Cache”.

In reading many of these posts it is remarkable how you can substitute other controversial topics of debate today, Micros caches, Vitruals, Lamp post caches, Democrats vs. Republicans, health care reform, Gay marriage, etc… Many have the same dogma: those who do “X” are wrong or it’s immoral…. Or the other group does this and they are the reason the “it” is screwed up, do it our way and everything will be better.

Know what? Sometimes different is just that. Different. It isn’t necessarily better or worse. The perception of reality is relativistic as everyone has their own unique view.

My 2 cents:

If you find a cache container and have in some way left evidence that you had found it, either by signing it or putting on a sticker, then you can log a find. I use stickers whenever possible, as my wife points out, no one can read my writing and half the time I don’t know what date to write anyway.

...then why is the ET so upsetting?

I didn't realize anybody was upset.

The posts in this thread certainly don't offer any indication that people are up in arms.

Yes, there are many who think the mindless repitition so often associated with numbers caching is tedious.

Yes, there are people who think uninspired locations and crappy containers do little to positively promote the game.

But upset? Nope. Don't think so. Maybe you're reading a different thread?

Let the fun continue….

Caching for numbers is not geocaching? If you think its not then just go out and make finds but don’t log them. How many of you that object to the counting of numbers know exactly how many you have found and included it in your posted messages in this thread? If you were not concerned about numbers then why is the ET so upsetting? You can always add to your profile that you do not “Power Cache”.

You seemed to have misread my post. Although I always aimed to go for nice caching experiences, I found it fun to move up the rankings, as I am a generally very competitive person. The ability of people to do 1,000+ caches in 2 days with the ET and well over a 100 in other UK drive by series means that with many of my "rivals" doing these type of caches that either I had to do them also or that I would not be able to keep pace with them. I have the financial means and time to do this but certainly not the inclination- if you were to tell a non cacher that your hobby was to go round driving from cache to cache to find as many as possible they would think you are crazy, especially as you had driven large distances just to get to the starting line also. It was then that I finally realised that chasing numbers was now getting very silly.

I will repeat that I am not unhappy about the situation, but people playing the game this way have changed the game for people who were playing the game by finding a lot by walking. I am not saying the cache placer or the cache finders are wrong, but they have altered the dynamics of one aspect of caching for good.

Let the fun continue….

Caching for numbers is not geocaching? If you think its not then just go out and make finds but don’t log them. How many of you that object to the counting of numbers know exactly how many you have found and included it in your posted messages in this thread? If you were not concerned about numbers then why is the ET so upsetting? You can always add to your profile that you do not “Power Cache”.

I don't care about the numbers anymore either, although for me, I never did try to keep up with others. However I will continue to find geocaches (because I enjoy finding them) and will continue to post accurate logs (i.e. post a found it log rather than a note) not because it increments my find count by one in my stat bar, but as a courtesy to the cache owner to share my experience and maintain an accurate history of their cache. Posting a find long when you've also found the cache give an accurate history of the cache to others that may wish to find it.

Know what? Sometimes different is just that. Different. It isn’t necessarily better or worse. The perception of reality is relativistic as everyone has their own unique view.

In this case, it's not just different. There has been plenty of evidence of where power caching on some trails *has* caused problems or in some way negatively impacted the game for others, even those that choose not to participate in power caching. Many that are pro- power caching only see the benefits and seem unwilling to acknowledge (or just don't care) that there actions may be detrimental to the game.

My 2 cents:

If you find a cache container and have in some way left evidence that you had found it, either by signing it or putting on a sticker, then you can log a find. I use stickers whenever possible, as my wife points out, no one can read my writing and half the time I don’t know what date to write anyway.

Case in point. You use stickers because they're convenient for you. From what I've read here over the past couple of years there seems to be a general consensus among cache owners that they don't like them. Should your convenience take precedence over the preference of those that are placing caches for you to find?

... I will repeat that I am not unhappy about the situation, but people playing the game this way have changed the game for people who were playing the game by finding a lot by walking. I am not saying the cache placer or the cache finders are wrong, but they have altered the dynamics of one aspect of caching for good.

How does the mere existence of a 'power trail' change the game for anyone who is not interested in finding poer trails? It seems to me that such a power trail would only enhance the game for those that like to hike. A person could go take a hike along the trail and only find a cache every mile, for instance. At a later date, he could do the same thing. He could, therefore, enjoy this power trail hike ten times. In fact, he could enjoy longer trails many more times as he doesn't need to hike the entire trail at once if he doesn't wish to. Heck, he doesn't need to every return to find the remaining caches if he doesn't want to. The mere existence of caches doesn't force anyone to go find them, after all.

Know what? Sometimes different is just that. Different. It isn’t necessarily better or worse. The perception of reality is relativistic as everyone has their own unique view.
In this case, it's not just different. There has been plenty of evidence of where power caching on some trails *has* caused problems or in some way negatively impacted the game for others, even those that choose not to participate in power caching. Many that are pro- power caching only see the benefits and seem unwilling to acknowledge (or just don't care) that there actions may be detrimental to the game.
There's not been much evidence that power trails are damaging anything.

Caches placed in sensitive environments can result in damage to those environments. That is true of any cache regardless of it's proximity to other caches.

My 2 cents:

If you find a cache container and have in some way left evidence that you had found it, either by signing it or putting on a sticker, then you can log a find. I use stickers whenever possible, as my wife points out, no one can read my writing and half the time I don’t know what date to write anyway.

Case in point. You use stickers because they're convenient for you. From what I've read here over the past couple of years there seems to be a general consensus among cache owners that they don't like them. Should your convenience take precedence over the preference of those that are placing caches for you to find?
The simple answer is 'yes'. There is nothing wrong with using stickers on a standard cache log. Anyone that argues that stickers are automatically bad must also be taking the position that anyone who writes anything but their name and date on the log is doing it wrong.

It should also be noted that your statement that the general concensus is that stickers are bad is simply untrue. There hasn't even been a concensus on this shown in threads about the issue, more less in the general community.

Edited by sbell111

There's not been much evidence that power trails are damaging anything.

Caches placed in sensitive environments can result in damage to those environments. That is true of any cache regardless of it's proximity to other caches.

1 cache = potential for damage to a sensitive environment.

500+ caches released at one time, .1 miles apart, spreading across 50+ miles of road = potential damage x500 with a footprint that can be seen from a 747.

Tell me that you honestly believe that every single one of these containers is going to be maintained to last more than a few months and that every single one of these containers will be collected once the series has run its course.

How does the mere existence of a 'power trail' change the game for anyone who is not interested in finding poer trails? It seems to me that such a power trail would only enhance the game for those that like to hike

My logic was that I was competing to be one of the top finders in the UK. I was achieving this through doing lots of caching. Some were power trails but ones that required walking, and maybe getting 5 an hour. A typical day would see me get 30-40 caches from a 6-8 hour walk. Now with people getting 1,000 caches in 2 days (ok this may be a one off exception but maybe not) and increasingly common 100+ drive bys a day, I will slip down the rankings at this present pace. Unless I spend most days caching I would have to also do these drive bys to maintain or improve my position. I don't want to do this. Many people I find are inconsistent in their attitude to numbers (fully admitting they really didn't mean much if anything but still looking to increase them anyway). I would have included myself in this group. This new situation has caused me to recognise the futility (in my mind at least) of going for numbers. This is likely to improve my life for the better, but for better or worse it has changed things.

On Sept 27th, 2010 we took a trip out to the Alien Highway in Nevada.

Our goal was to find all 1021 ET geocaches in 24 hours (they are numbered E.T. #001 thru E.T. #1021).

We only took one vehicle and 4 geocachers.

We only drove 165 miles between 2 gas stations, yet we had to add 10 gallons of gas (we brought it with us)

I hope that only the cacher who got out of the vehicle and physically handled the cache was the only one to log it.

Otherwise, why not count people who simply drive along this road and wave at each cache? Heck, you could do all of them in about 3 hours. A New World Record!!!

On Sept 27th, 2010 we took a trip out to the Alien Highway in Nevada.

Our goal was to find all 1021 ET geocaches in 24 hours (they are numbered E.T. #001 thru E.T. #1021).

We only took one vehicle and 4 geocachers.

We only drove 165 miles between 2 gas stations, yet we had to add 10 gallons of gas (we brought it with us)

I hope that only the cacher who got out of the vehicle and physically handled the cache was the only one to log it.

Otherwise, why not count people who simply drive along this road and wave at each cache? Heck, you could do all of them in about 3 hours. A New World Record!!!

There are plenty of cacher on these forums that would in very vague terms indicate that this would be just fine and dandy as long as the CO approved or they never asked the CO in the first place.

There's not been much evidence that power trails are damaging anything.

Caches placed in sensitive environments can result in damage to those environments. That is true of any cache regardless of it's proximity to other caches.

1 cache = potential for damage to a sensitive environment.

500+ caches released at one time, .1 miles apart, spreading across 50+ miles of road = potential damage x500 with a footprint that can be seen from a 747.

Tell me that you honestly believe that every single one of these containers is going to be maintained to last more than a few months and that every single one of these containers will be collected once the series has run its course.

There is that, but my reasoning is slightly different. While there are exceptions such as a certain geocacher from Humboldt, it's been said by many that part of the allure of a power trail is to attempt to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time. With that goal in mind, turning a days (or more, as in the case of that Humboldt cacher) geocaching into a race. That that goal in mind, I've seen plenty of evidence of various methods used to try to shave off a few seconds between caches. That includes things like slapping a sticker on a log book (or even on the outside of a container), or trying to drive as close as possible to ground zero rather than parking on the shoulder in order to save a few precious steps between the vehicle and the cache.

From the cache listing on one of the Alien Head caches near the trail the CO writes:

"Please don't drive to these caches. The extraterrestrial visitors might take this as a threat. We think it will be safe if we tread lightly and walk to the landing sites. Have fun and keep your eye to the sky!"

From reading the logs it appears most of the finders are heeding the COs request but not all:

Awesome chance to put the new 4 wheel drive Toyota Tacoma to work! The rain a couple of days before raised the level of excitement with the prospect of being mired in the desert mud. But the HEAD was dry. Too bad. Still, we had to avoid some spots where brush would scratch the pristine paint job.

We used a ford explorer as our cache-mobile for the E.T HWY. For the alien head we used dirt bikes.

We walked the mouth and chin then drove the rest.

We were a little skeptical of our trusty steed (Nissan Versa) but we (...i) trudged on into the heart of the Alien Head and came up with the smileys.

Obviously I don't have to time to peruse every one of the logs, but I'm convinced that at least there were more than a few finders that felt that coming up with as many smiley as quick as possible was more important than any environmental damage that might be caused.

I just makes sense that if you place a huge series of caches very close together, that is enough to motivate some to try to cut some corners to find them as quickly as possible. The same just can't be said for 500+ caches, of varying difficulties, spaced farther apart. A non power trail collection of 500+ caches just isn't conducive to obtaining as many finds as on a power trail, so, although there may be a few exceptions few geocachers will treat it like a race.

A number of valid points raised by the cacher who paddles. Just returned from the E.T. Trail ... had a major chipped concrete moment @ cache # 880 ... could not for the life of me locate it.

Let me scour this bush that has been driven over says I.

Hmmmmmm there it was; the cache hide device punched into the ground by the weight of at least three vehicles ( three distinct tread patterns plus others in close proximity ) and the container split asunder.

Yepper the salty old dawg from Humboldt replaced the container ... then constructed a safety berm with rather good sized rocks.

Cache container @ 882 had taken a direct hit as well ... replaced that container.

Should we not be better stewards of our playing field?

Edited by humboldt flier

On Sept 27th, 2010 we took a trip out to the Alien Highway in Nevada.

Our goal was to find all 1021 ET geocaches in 24 hours (they are numbered E.T. #001 thru E.T. #1021).

We only took one vehicle and 4 geocachers.

We only drove 165 miles between 2 gas stations, yet we had to add 10 gallons of gas (we brought it with us)

I hope that only the cacher who got out of the vehicle and physically handled the cache was the only one to log it.

Otherwise, why not count people who simply drive along this road and wave at each cache? Heck, you could do all of them in about 3 hours. A New World Record!!!

Of course that is not how it was done. The new way p[ower trails are done is only one or two cachers in the group look for the cache. THe rubber stamp has all the names on it.

A number of valid points raised by the cacher who paddles. Just returned from the E.T. Trail ... had a major chipped concrete moment @ cache # 880 ... could not for the life of me locate it.

Let me scour this bush that has been driven over says I.

Hmmmmmm there it was; the cache hide device punched into the ground by the weight of at least three vehicles ( three distinct tread patterns plus others in close proximity ) and the container split asunder.

Yepper the salty old dawg from Humboldt replaced the container ... then constructed a safety berm with rather good sized rocks.

Cache container @ 882 had taken a direct hit as well ... replaced that container.

Should we not be better stewards of our playing field?

Perhaps the monotony of the trail was affecting their driving.

On those caches, we left the vehicle ON the highway. The only time we moved off the edge of the tar was when a vehicle was approaching from behind us (on our side of the road).

Some caches were up to 70 feet away from the road edge. We hiked over to those.

A number of valid points raised by the cacher who paddles. Just returned from the E.T. Trail ... had a major chipped concrete moment @ cache # 880 ... could not for the life of me locate it.

Let me scour this bush that has been driven over says I.

Hmmmmmm there it was; the cache hide device punched into the ground by the weight of at least three vehicles ( three distinct tread patterns plus others in close proximity ) and the container split asunder.

And how many Finds were logged online while the cache was buried in the ground? I am sure more than one.

I can not speak to the last post, however, I can report that every cache I opened had the moniker belonging to a group with integrity and scruples. They identify with the county to the north of Los Angeles County ( Ventura ).

A number of valid points raised by the cacher who paddles. Just returned from the E.T. Trail ... had a major chipped concrete moment @ cache # 880 ... could not for the life of me locate it.

Let me scour this bush that has been driven over says I.

Hmmmmmm there it was; the cache hide device punched into the ground by the weight of at least three vehicles ( three distinct tread patterns plus others in close proximity ) and the container split asunder.

And how many Finds were logged online while the cache was buried in the ground? I am sure more than one.

I can think of two. One is archived, one is not.

Let the fun continue….

Caching for numbers is not geocaching? If you think its not then just go out and make finds but don’t log them. How many of you that object to the counting of numbers know exactly how many you have found and included it in your posted messages in this thread? If you were not concerned about numbers then why is the ET so upsetting? You can always add to your profile that you do not “Power Cache”.

I log my finds for three reasons. The primary one is to let the cache owner know I found the cache. He spent the time, money and effort to place the cache, so the least I can do is to let him know I found it and enjoyed the experience (or not if the case may be). A secondary reason is for me to have a convenient place to store my geocaching journals, so I can look back and re-live my experiences. A terciary reason is so I don't include caches I found in my pocket queries.

As far as my find count? I really don't know what it is. 800 something, I'd have to look at my profile to know for sure. It's not something that is important to me.

As to why the ET trail is upsetting, I see these power trails as a danger to the sport. Several people have already reported that there were tire tracks in areas where they shouldn't have been. Yahoos with numbers on their minds are apparently driving where they shouldn't drive in order to rack up finds as fast as they can.

If you think the BLM and other land managers are going to see wanton environmental damage in the pursuit of vanity as a good thing, think again. The BLM was apparently not pleased with the TOTG power trail. Piss them off enough and you can say goodbye to 253 million plus acres of prime caching territory.

No skin off my back because we have little in the way of BLM lands in the east, but for you westerners, just keep trying to push the envelope. Don't cry though when you push it a little too far and get blow back from those who have power over our sport.

Edited by briansnat

The Mod has a major point:

We lost a lot of cache hiding acreage here in the Redwoods and only through a lot of hard work we once again have access. That access is limited limited and there are very strict guidelines.

I have maintained for years: if we trash the playground, we will be invited to exit the playground.

Edited by humboldt flier

The Mod has a major point:

We lost a lot of cache hiding acreage here in the Redwoods and only through a lot of hard work we once again have access. That access is limited limited and there are very strict guidelines.

I have maintained for years: if we trash the playground, we will be invited to exit the playground.

Good point and one that a lot of people are not getting. Land managers who are against geocaching usually envision hordes of geocachers trashing the area around caches. In the past that has generally been a misconception, as non urban/suburban caches generally receive few finds. But once a power trail is in place, the hordes appear.

We were happy to see this powercaching trail show up in an area where cow poo is piled high, and nothing else. Since most of the caches are within 50 feet of the roadway, any footprints will still remain in the grading along the sides of the roadway. We think this was well planned.

Also, we noticed 385 logs on the main cache (E.T. 001), so I'm guessing less than 1000 cachers have stomped over to these caches since June....or was it July.

I think the local establishments are happy we are out there. I have seen postings stating that the local hotel is handing out film cans to geocachers when they check out.

Got to love this trail and the uniqueness of the area. Made some great discoveries 2 wks. ago and will be returning in the spring for caching unrelated to the trail.

Visited with an out of the area cacher while on the trail who stated " I thought this was going to be easy, I am earning everyone of these blasted smileys. "

With a big burst of laughter the group commented on the hides in the middle 100'S and how pesky some of them were, especially the one that was waaaaaay off the roadway. The group, in good humor directed their commentary toward the naysayers, " these are far from drive-bys, this is a tough playground ".

I think that people who argue that geocaching is a sport and then turn around and claim that people who want to run records somehow endanger the sport likely don't believe their own arguments.

Drag racing isn't race car driving. What driving skill does it take to go 1/4 mile in a straight line as fast as you can. Real racing is Indy car racing.

Indy car racing isn't race car driving. Going around an oval 100 times - how boring. Real racing is the Baja 1000.

On Sept 27th, 2010 we took a trip out to the Alien Highway in Nevada.

Our goal was to find all 1021 ET geocaches in 24 hours (they are numbered E.T. #001 thru E.T. #1021).

We only took one vehicle and 4 geocachers.

We only drove 165 miles between 2 gas stations, yet we had to add 10 gallons of gas (we brought it with us)

I hope that only the cacher who got out of the vehicle and physically handled the cache was the only one to log it.

Otherwise, why not count people who simply drive along this road and wave at each cache? Heck, you could do all of them in about 3 hours. A New World Record!!!

Eeek! The almighty find count. We must keep it pure and invent rules for who gets to log a find online. None of this team stuff (or if you do it as a team the just log it once with the team name) Everyone has to march over the spot and find the cache and sign the log individually to report the find online. If they don't the find count won't be right. It won't mean what I want it to mean.

No, you did not. Unless you physicaly signed each log--basic requirement. Impossibility for the time frame you claim. However, it's obvious that you make these posts just to get a rise. You know no one acknowledges your "finds" as legit.

You should learn to speak for yourself, and only yourself. I accept all of VKs finds as legit. And, there is no basic requirement that says that each log has to be physicaly (sic) signed.

Yes, there is, per Groundspeak. No GC police to enforce it, however. To quote--"If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad." I'm only participating in this for the debate. Have fun however you want to.

AND--still doesn't mean many of us outside of your own GC peer group do take you all seriously in our circles.

I have the upmost respect for you and those in your puritan circles. What dedication it must take to never falter from the rules that you've made up and what honesty you have to apply them to others. You are truly better than the rest of us who just want to have fun doing things our way. But since we are wrong in saying that it's up to the cache owner to decide if a log is bogus and should be deleted, we acknowledge your assement that the V_Ks have cheated and could not have signed or even stickered all those caches.

(I, like Don_J, have gone geocaching with Ventura_Kids, f0t0m0m, and foomanjoo. So I tend to believe that if they say they found 1157 caches, they found 1157 caches. They may not meet some particular made up puritan rule in logging the caches. I suspect that most of the caches were found by one of the group, someone else probaby handed the "finder" a sticker with all their names which he placed in the log before putting back the cache back, then they all got back in the car to go to the next one. No doubt some puritans will insist that one person can't sticker the cache for everyone, or that each cacher has to touch the log, or that stickers don't count, or some other rule they make up. Feel free to make up what ever rules you want. I'm pretty sure that they didn't set a record according to your rules.)

I can not speak to the last post, however, I can report that every cache I opened had the moniker belonging to a group with integrity and scruples. They identify with the county to the north of Los Angeles County ( Ventura ).

Speaks to the final paragraph in the post directly above. I have no doubts.

We were happy to see this powercaching trail show up in an area where cow poo is piled high, and nothing else. Since most of the caches are within 50 feet of the roadway, any footprints will still remain in the grading along the sides of the roadway. We think this was well planned.

Also, we noticed 385 logs on the main cache (E.T. 001), so I'm guessing less than 1000 cachers have stomped over to these caches since June....or was it July.

I think the local establishments are happy we are out there. I have seen postings stating that the local hotel is handing out film cans to geocachers when they check out.

WOW I'm suprised it took you so long to notice this thread fell off the front page

Let the fun continue….

Caching for numbers is not geocaching? If you think its not then just go out and make finds but don’t log them. How many of you that object to the counting of numbers know exactly how many you have found and included it in your posted messages in this thread? If you were not concerned about numbers then why is the ET so upsetting? You can always add to your profile that you do not “Power Cache”.

I log my finds for three reasons. The primary one is to let the cache owner know I found the cache. He spent the time, money and effort to place the cache, so the least I can do is to let him know I found it and enjoyed the experience (or not if the case may be). A secondary reason is for me to have a convenient place to store my geocaching journals, so I can look back and re-live my experiences. A terciary reason is so I don't include caches I found in my pocket queries.

As far as my find count? I really don't know what it is. 800 something, I'd have to look at my profile to know for sure. It's not something that is important to me.

As to why the ET trail is upsetting, I see these power trails as a danger to the sport. Several people have already reported that there were tire tracks in areas where they shouldn't have been. Yahoos with numbers on their minds are apparently driving where they shouldn't drive in order to rack up finds as fast as they can.

If you think the BLM and other land managers are going to see wanton environmental damage in the pursuit of vanity as a good thing, think again. The BLM was apparently not pleased with the TOTG power trail. Piss them off enough and you can say goodbye to 253 million plus acres of prime caching territory.

No skin off my back because we have little in the way of BLM lands in the east, but for you westerners, just keep trying to push the envelope. Don't cry though when you push it a little too far and get blow back from those who have power over our sport.

We've lost places to cache in our area.

last year we were asked to remove all the caches in a very large park, that included boat caches.

After many years a large park in Seattle is allowing caches again, but only after many years of regular CITO's there to regain their trust. They are watching us closely now though.

I've seen many parks trashed by careless cachers. I think we will probably lose a whole lot more before people begin caring.

(I, like Don_J, have gone geocaching with Ventura_Kids, f0t0m0m, and foomanjoo. So I tend to believe that if they say they found 1157 caches, they found 1157 caches. They may not meet some particular made up puritan rule in logging the caches. I suspect that most of the caches were found by one of the group, someone else probaby handed the "finder" a sticker with all their names which he placed in the log before putting back the cache back, then they all got back in the car to go to the next one. No doubt some puritans will insist that one person can't sticker the cache for everyone, or that each cacher has to touch the log, or that stickers don't count, or some other rule they make up. Feel free to make up what ever rules you want. I'm pretty sure that they didn't set a record according to your rules.)

Actually the puritan point of view is that the things they found are not geocaches. Therefore they are not geocaching therefore they can log and do as they wish but certainly not claim a geocaching record.

Oops. edited to add the smiley to soften the blow.

Edited by BelKen

(I, like Don_J, have gone geocaching with Ventura_Kids, f0t0m0m, and foomanjoo. So I tend to believe that if they say they found 1157 caches, they found 1157 caches. They may not meet some particular made up puritan rule in logging the caches. I suspect that most of the caches were found by one of the group, someone else probaby handed the "finder" a sticker with all their names which he placed in the log before putting back the cache back, then they all got back in the car to go to the next one. No doubt some puritans will insist that one person can't sticker the cache for everyone, or that each cacher has to touch the log, or that stickers don't count, or some other rule they make up. Feel free to make up what ever rules you want. I'm pretty sure that they didn't set a record according to your rules.)

Actually the puritan point of view is that the things they found are not geocaches. Therefore they are not geocaching therefore they can log and do as they wish but certainly not claim a geocaching record.

Oops. edited to add the smiley to soften the blow.

Ah! But the puritan view is that they are geocaches. They are listed on Geocaching.com, each with its own GC number. They meet all the guidelines for a geocache. If they we setting a record by posting finds for each stage of multi or by attending an event addtional times for each temporary cache, the puritans would say they were not geocaching. Perhaps we need a different epithet for those who think the so-called power trail caches should not be approved. Perhaps reactionary - describing someone who objects to a change in the guidelines they didn't like - or revisionist for insisting on a narrow view of geocaching and ignoring any changes that have occurred in the guidelines that they object to.

......

WOW I'm suprised it took you so long to notice this thread fell off the front page

I've been busy.

I am in the camp these nothing matters but numbers cachers have ruined caching. While there has always been numbers competitiveness, in the early days of caching, you competed by finding caches that were in interesting locations or a nice hike. Caching was much more fun when there was a reason to place a cache besides allowing a numbers hound to find another cache.

I get irritated when the numbers hounds say well just don't find them. Easier said than done. There is no way to filter out the garbage. The nothing matters but numbers caches have just overwhelmed the quality caches and any more it is a challenge to find quality caches.

I wish Groundspeak would crack down on this and at least have a 50/50 split between quality and numbers.

But I have also thought of some compromises. How about instead of these powerruns and crappy caches, how about the number hounds find an environmentally insensitive spot and set up 10 caches in a circle course. Then let the numbers hounds go round in circles all day finding the same caches over and over. Its not like it takes skill to find the caches on some of these power runs. So finding the same cache over and over again is not any harder than finding different caches along the ET Trail.

I've also been thinking about (feel free to use this anywhere) an ammo box with several black film canisters and a clear canister that has the logbook. The rules would be each time you find the clear canister with the log book, it would count as a find. After you find it, you throw it back in the ammo can, mix up the canisters, find the clear one again and count another find. But to save on log space, you would only have to sign the log once and indicate how many times you found the cache. To make it fair, I might have a rule you can only have 2,000 finds a day. If another cacher showed up, group hunt rules would apply. Each cacher would be able to log a find each time any cacher found the log while they were there.

I think both methods would give the numbers hounds what they want and not ruin caching for those who enjoy quality caches!

Can you give me the GC code of the first one?

Thanks

(I, like Don_J, have gone geocaching with Ventura_Kids, f0t0m0m, and foomanjoo. So I tend to believe that if they say they found 1157 caches, they found 1157 caches. They may not meet some particular made up puritan rule in logging the caches. I suspect that most of the caches were found by one of the group, someone else probaby handed the "finder" a sticker with all their names which he placed in the log before putting back the cache back, then they all got back in the car to go to the next one. No doubt some puritans will insist that one person can't sticker the cache for everyone, or that each cacher has to touch the log, or that stickers don't count, or some other rule they make up. Feel free to make up what ever rules you want. I'm pretty sure that they didn't set a record according to your rules.)

Actually the puritan point of view is that the things they found are not geocaches. Therefore they are not geocaching therefore they can log and do as they wish but certainly not claim a geocaching record.

Oops. edited to add the smiley to soften the blow.

Ah! But the puritan view is that they are geocaches. They are listed on Geocaching.com, each with its own GC number. They meet all the guidelines for a geocache. If they we setting a record by posting finds for each stage of multi or by attending an event addtional times for each temporary cache, the puritans would say they were not geocaching. Perhaps we need a different epithet for those who think the so-called power trail caches should not be approved. Perhaps reactionary - describing someone who objects to a change in the guidelines they didn't like - or revisionist for insisting on a narrow view of geocaching and ignoring any changes that have occurred in the guidelines that they object to.

OK. I'm not puritan then. Just puritan leanings. Given what you said above you going to hate analysing the subculture I belong to.

Just to give you a hint. I would enjoy doing this run. Probably when I get tired of geocaching. They meet all the guidelines to be listed on geocaching.com as a cache.

edited to add Maybe a kanutist

Edited by BelKen

Perhaps we need another thread something to the effect " I hate power trails, those who work them, numbers cachers, and their ilk " It might serve to keep the main thread a little cleaner.

Perhaps we need another thread something to the effect " I hate power trails, those who work them, numbers cachers, and their ilk " It might serve to keep the main thread a little cleaner.

Or, one titled "Monotony is Boring". That would save you a bunch of syllables. You know how rare them things are.

Perhaps we need another thread something to the effect " I hate power trails, those who work them, numbers cachers, and their ilk " It might serve to keep the main thread a little cleaner.

Or, one titled "Monotony is Boring". That would save you a bunch of syllables. You know how rare them things are.

Love it Riff

Can you give me the GC code of the first one?

Thanks

GC2551A

I am in the camp these nothing matters but numbers cachers have ruined caching. While there has always been numbers competitiveness, in the early days of caching, you competed by finding caches that were in interesting locations or a nice hike. Caching was much more fun when there was a reason to place a cache besides allowing a numbers hound to find another cache.

I get irritated when the numbers hounds say well just don't find them. Easier said than done. There is no way to filter out the garbage. The nothing matters but numbers caches have just overwhelmed the quality caches and any more it is a challenge to find quality caches.

I wish Groundspeak would crack down on this and at least have a 50/50 split between quality and numbers.

But I have also thought of some compromises. How about instead of these powerruns and crappy caches, how about the number hounds find an environmentally insensitive spot and set up 10 caches in a circle course. Then let the numbers hounds go round in circles all day finding the same caches over and over. Its not like it takes skill to find the caches on some of these power runs. So finding the same cache over and over again is not any harder than finding different caches along the ET Trail.

I've also been thinking about (feel free to use this anywhere) an ammo box with several black film canisters and a clear canister that has the logbook. The rules would be each time you find the clear canister with the log book, it would count as a find. After you find it, you throw it back in the ammo can, mix up the canisters, find the clear one again and count another find. But to save on log space, you would only have to sign the log once and indicate how many times you found the cache. To make it fair, I might have a rule you can only have 2,000 finds a day. If another cacher showed up, group hunt rules would apply. Each cacher would be able to log a find each time any cacher found the log while they were there.

I think both methods would give the numbers hounds what they want and not ruin caching for those who enjoy quality caches!

That is an excellent perspective from a really, really old-schooler, from an area where numbers caching hysteria has come to totally dominate Geocaching. If I were you, I'd probably be scrapbooking or something these days.

I am in the camp these nothing matters but numbers cachers have ruined caching. While there has always been numbers competitiveness, in the early days of caching, you competed by finding caches that were in interesting locations or a nice hike. Caching was much more fun when there was a reason to place a cache besides allowing a numbers hound to find another cache.

I get irritated when the numbers hounds say well just don't find them. Easier said than done. There is no way to filter out the garbage. The nothing matters but numbers caches have just overwhelmed the quality caches and any more it is a challenge to find quality caches.

I wish Groundspeak would crack down on this and at least have a 50/50 split between quality and numbers.

But I have also thought of some compromises. How about instead of these powerruns and crappy caches, how about the number hounds find an environmentally insensitive spot and set up 10 caches in a circle course. Then let the numbers hounds go round in circles all day finding the same caches over and over. Its not like it takes skill to find the caches on some of these power runs. So finding the same cache over and over again is not any harder than finding different caches along the ET Trail.

I've also been thinking about (feel free to use this anywhere) an ammo box with several black film canisters and a clear canister that has the logbook. The rules would be each time you find the clear canister with the log book, it would count as a find. After you find it, you throw it back in the ammo can, mix up the canisters, find the clear one again and count another find. But to save on log space, you would only have to sign the log once and indicate how many times you found the cache. To make it fair, I might have a rule you can only have 2,000 finds a day. If another cacher showed up, group hunt rules would apply. Each cacher would be able to log a find each time any cacher found the log while they were there.

I think both methods would give the numbers hounds what they want and not ruin caching for those who enjoy quality caches!

I'd like to see a new category of caches called "Tag Caches". It would be nothing more than a strip of flagging tape, or other highly visible item. The numbers hounds can drive by and if they see the "tag" they get a find. No need to get out of the car, or even slow down. Tag Caches would not be subject to the proximity guideline, so will not crowd out quality traditional caches and you can place them as close together as you want to maximize enjoyment (and find count of course). Think of the possibilities. Never mind 1,157 finds in 24 hours. People can reach that number in 30 minutes.

I like the suggestion of creating a tag cache category!

Another thing that bothers me is calling this a "world record." I think a better way to describe it would be the most caches any idiot could find without any skill or planning in a 24 hour period by a group of 4 cachers. I grant them it takes endurance to find that many, but declaring themselves world record holders seems arrogant and disrespectful of feats that required skill and planning. I remember BruceS (I think he was the first cacher to make 5K) and I would say most of his trips were a much greater accomplishment than this so-called "world record." Notwithstanding the issue of how easy the caches were, if this would be considered a record, should not they be required to divide 1157 by 4 or only count the caches they actually "found" instead of taking credit for a cache someone in the group found? I've got nothing against logging a find on a group hunt, but counting caches you did not actually find toward a self proclaimed world record seems inappropriate.

Here are some things I think that could be done to crack down on the numbers hounds:

1) Enforce rules on private property (i.e, Walmart parking lots are private property and the hider should be required to provide proof of permission).

2) Clearly prohibit caches in or near playgrounds.

3) Only allow once caching account per person.

4) Limit cacher hiders to 50 active caches

5) Have a cache type of something like lame or only numbers matter and archive any cache that does not properly identify itself as a lame cache.

A number of valid points raised by the cacher who paddles. Just returned from the E.T. Trail ... had a major chipped concrete moment @ cache # 880 ... could not for the life of me locate it.

Let me scour this bush that has been driven over says I.

Hmmmmmm there it was; the cache hide device punched into the ground by the weight of at least three vehicles ( three distinct tread patterns plus others in close proximity ) and the container split asunder.

And how many Finds were logged online while the cache was buried in the ground? I am sure more than one.

I now have the time to do more cahing than I have been for the past two years. Now about 10%-15% of the caches I find are illegal as in Buried, Punched into the ground, screwed or glue into trees, naile to private property. In the pat maybe .5% of the caches I came accross were illegal (I no longer log finds on illegal caches that I have come accross)

If you contact the owner about the problem they will sat "well I found one like that so it must be OK"

If some one should post the SBA log then the locals get pissed off. Most cachers do not care if a cache os illegal, they just want to add it to their numbers.