Jump to content

New World Record - 1157 geocache finds in 24 hours


Recommended Posts

So in 2001 the forum didn't have a quote feature?

 

There was not a forum in those days. Locally we had a cache called the "Local News" that was not a findable cache. It was the means of keeping locals informed. There was also a listserve. We also used walkie talkies on the trips to talk from car to car.

Link to comment

 

You can rationalze all you want that there is a way to filter out the garbage. But as the saying goes, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. Yes there have been some changes for the better (like getting rid of locationless caches), but transforming geocahing from being about the adventure to being about the numbers is not a postive change. In the early days of cacihing, the cache placers put thought and consideration into thier caches. Now the vast majority are mindless nothing matters but numbers caches.

 

You're right. Geocaching is ruined, it all sucks. You should quit doing it.

Link to comment

So in 2001 the forum didn't have a quote feature?

 

There was not a forum in those days. Locally we had a cache called the "Local News" that was not a findable cache. It was the means of keeping locals informed. There was also a listserve. We also used walkie talkies on the trips to talk from car to car.

 

You cached up hill, both ways, right?

Link to comment

So in 2001 the forum didn't have a quote feature?

In 2001 the forums didn't have a Signal eating ice-cream smiley. :santa:

 

Old timers are entitled to their opinion that nowadays geocachers are hiding mostly mindless garbage.

 

It becomes controversial because the people hiding these kinds of caches don't view them as mindless garbage. They enjoy a game where there are lots of caches to find and perhaps even where these are easy (mindless?) hides that don't take much time. Strangly, there are some people who started geocaching in 2001 who not only enjoy these kind of hides, but prefer them to other types of hides. Perhaps though, there were some places in 2001 where there were only people who enjoyed a particular kind of cache and these places didn't start seeing mindless garbage till years later.

 

The filtering suggestions are not meant to be a perfect solution. But they do work in helping to balance the mix of geocaches you are looking for by eliminating most of what you think of as mindless garbage. That you may miss some great caches isn't so much of a tradgedy since there are still plenty for you to find, and if someone recommends a 1/1 urban micro to find because it is an exceptional cache, you can add it to your to-do list. When I want to eat real ice cream I go to a store that sells hand scooped ice cream, preferably made on the premises, and avoid places that dispense stuff from a soft-serve machine. That's called filtering. I could just go into any old place and then complain on the ice cream forums about the mindless soft-serve garbage that you find everywhere these days. :santa:

Link to comment

I have the same issue....except it is the exact opposite. :huh:

I have been attempting to filter out all the tough hides, the hiking hides, and the bush hides.

I only want to see those lampost hides, and those hides where I don't have to trudge thru shrubbery, climb rock piles, and be exposed to Poison Oak, rattle snakes, and ticks.

I filter my PQ's to only show those terrain 2.0's and below. :laughing:

 

Oh.... I guess I just dragged my own thread off subject..... dang. :D

Back in '01, I suppose most geocachers had the problem of there not being enough geocaches in their area. They were able to find every cache, whether it was "mindless garbage" or too tough. They didn't worry about filtering or about whether the filter eliminated some neat caches. You found everything, and if there were caches you didn't like you didn't complain because they didn't keep you from finding the ones you like.

 

As I sit here at the desk of a hotel where I have been staying for the past four days I am waiting for the results of a pocket query I created a couple of weeks ago to return the latest results so that I can update the caches in my GPS. I set the query to return the maximum number of caches of any type, size, and difficulty within a 200 mile radius. The preview page of the query indicates that I should expect to 95 results. No, I'm not in some rural remote area in the middle of nowhere. I'm in Beijing, China, a city with a population of 22 million people. I've been in plenty of places within the past few years where there were fewer than a 10 caches within 200 miles. In many parts of the world, the density of geocaches is essentially still like it was back in '01 yet it is suggested that there is one true method for filtering caches that can work for all of us.

 

So much to say. Fact is I have 127 caches hid deep in the Santa Monica And Santa Susana Ranges.

You are welcome to visit if you are in the area.

Geocaching 101 Says look at the doggone map.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

To be honest, I look at every cache page BEFORE I go out hunting. How else will I know if I'm going to be interested in the cache or not? Sometimes I feel like some park and grabs, sometimes I feel like a power trail, sometimes I feel like hiking several miles, or driving down country roads. I look for an area to go, run a pocket query and read through the cache pages; plan my day.

 

That is the best way to filter out "garbage" in my opinion. Just remember what they say about one man's trash...

 

Honestly, I can see why folks wouldn't like power trails, but how does that make it okay to come in with a high and mighty attitude like your way is the only way? It just isn't. I don't go around calling rock climbing caches garbage because I don't want to find them. It isn't fair or productive.

 

I think the most productive thing you can do is support others' fun. If someone is having fun, and your fun isn't spoiled; that's what matters. I think you'll still have enough caches to find even if a few power trails exist or not, or even if a few micro park and grabs or LPCs exist.

 

Not everyone got to start 'back in the day.' Every hobby, pastime, culture, government, etc changes; it's how the world and society work.

Link to comment

 

To be honest, I look at every cache page BEFORE I go out hunting. How else will I know if I'm going to be interested in the cache or not? Sometimes I feel like some park and grabs, sometimes I feel like a power trail, sometimes I feel like hiking several miles, or driving down country roads. I look for an area to go, run a pocket query and read through the cache pages; plan my day.

 

 

That's how I usually do it, too. On the other hand, sometimes I just grab my Garmin and go. It always has the 500 closest unfound-by-me caches to my house loaded in it.

 

But when I choose to grab it and go, I don't complain because it leads me somewhere I didn't especially care for. I can either lift the lamp-post-skirt and sign the log, or I can go on to the next cache without searching. I'm finding that I am choosing the latter more often than I used to.

 

Whichever choice I make, I recognize that it is, indeed, my choice. I know I don't have to find them all, and I know a lot of people do enjoy the ones that I don't care for.

Link to comment

That's how I usually do it, too. On the other hand, sometimes I just grab my Garmin and go. It always has the 500 closest unfound-by-me caches to my house loaded in it.

 

But when I choose to grab it and go, I don't complain because it leads me somewhere I didn't especially care for. I can either lift the lamp-post-skirt and sign the log, or I can go on to the next cache without searching. I'm finding that I am choosing the latter more often than I used to.

 

Whichever choice I make, I recognize that it is, indeed, my choice. I know I don't have to find them all, and I know a lot of people do enjoy the ones that I don't care for.

That's pretty much describes what we do as well. Usually we know what type of cache to expect before we get there. If it turn out to be something that doesn't interest us, such as a juniper bush full of trash...then we give it a cursory look and move on.

 

We try to keep this fun for us. If we're in the mood to grab a bunch of easy ones and explore a new neighborhood, we do. If we're in the mood to tackle some 3.5 or 4.0 difficulty caches, we go for that. It's nice to live in an area where we have lots of choices.

Link to comment

I don't think that just because I don't think powers trails are any fun, that other people won't think they're fun. I see several problems with powertrails. One is the maint. issue. That could be said with any hide, but hide numbers going up creates more of an issue. Also, while there could be another debate on whether multiple containers are bad or not, power trails have a lot of that issue as well. I know of a fairly recent power trail that some local cachers found 3 containers at one spot. The main issue I have is increased bad "press". Run-ins with muggles, land owners and LEO's. The Power trails i've seen in my area are on country roads where people are protective of their land and neighbors land. These power trail hides just increase contact with non-cachers and create geo trails from parking and walking with the frequency of finds. A lot of the hides are in turn-ins to peoples land or flat areas off road that a car can park without getting stuck. There are many new road pull-offs created. If the power trail caches were placed in better places ie: start looking for a unobtrusive spot after the .1 mile rule and if the next spot is .2 or 1.1 miles, then that is the next spot. Don't limit the hide to .1 to .15 and just force one in. I don't want to see bad press turn into increased regulations to hinder geocaching in the future. I understand the draw of the power trail. I actually don't have a problem with them in principal, it's just that not all areas are conducive to one.

Link to comment

I bet lots of you support steroids in baseball - heck some people enjoy it and lots of the players did it. So those who like baseball without steroids should just shut up and those who use steroids should not have to identify themselves.

 

Calling finding these ET caches the "world record" is like Bonds and the home run record.

 

Acting like there was not a steroid problem did not make it go away. Acting like there is a way for those who enjoy what caching was meant to be are not affected by all these mindless caches, does not make it so. I have greatly reduced my caching as I get so frustrated by all the mindless garbage that has overwhelmed traditional quality caching. The numberhounds not only act like they are not affecting others fun, they act like they are the one being persecuted.

 

I have a very simple question. Why should not there be an attribute or cache type for "power trails" and for mindless caches for numbers hounds that do not show you something interesting or is hid in a creative way? While I do not think these caches should be allowed, it just amazes me how the numbers hounds don't support this as middle ground. I guess its like the steroid users not wanting what they did on steroids identified.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

To be honest, I look at every cache page BEFORE I go out hunting. How else will I know if I'm going to be interested in the cache or not? Sometimes I feel like some park and grabs, sometimes I feel like a power trail, sometimes I feel like hiking several miles, or driving down country roads. I look for an area to go, run a pocket query and read through the cache pages; plan my day.

 

That is the best way to filter out "garbage" in my opinion. Just remember what they say about one man's trash...

 

Honestly, I can see why folks wouldn't like power trails, but how does that make it okay to come in with a high and mighty attitude like your way is the only way? It just isn't. I don't go around calling rock climbing caches garbage because I don't want to find them. It isn't fair or productive.

 

I think the most productive thing you can do is support others' fun. If someone is having fun, and your fun isn't spoiled; that's what matters. I think you'll still have enough caches to find even if a few power trails exist or not, or even if a few micro park and grabs or LPCs exist.

 

Not everyone got to start 'back in the day.' Every hobby, pastime, culture, government, etc changes; it's how the world and society work.

 

Earlier this year, I went to Denver - I had over 3,000 caches just in the Denver vicinity (in earlier days I could cover most of CO with 500 caches). For argument sake, lets say there are 3,000 caches. If one spent 30 seconds per cache page, it would take 25 hours. I ended up only trying for 2 caches on the trip.

Link to comment
These power trail hides just increase contact with non-cachers and create geo trails from parking and walking with the frequency of finds...There are many new road pull-offs created.

I have mixed feelings about power trails. On one hand I think it would be a blast to do something like the ET series, but on the other it upsets me that people don't pay attention to the cache pages like for the alien head and drive to the caches even though they've been asked not to on the cache page.

 

Is getting to a cache quickly worth so much that finders will take the chance that it will give caching a bad name and anger those who oversee these lands and possibly get caching banned?

Link to comment

Earlier this year, I went to Denver - I had over 3,000 caches just in the Denver vicinity

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

 

Use the tools that are available to you. Start by filtering out micros. That's going to get rid of a lot of the caches you don't like. It might eliminate a few that you would like, but so what? You'll still have more "good" caches than you'll have time to search for.

 

Then look at them on a map. See all those caches right next to the highway? And all those in parking lots? Don't look for them! See the ones in the parks, and along the greenway trails, and up in the mountains? Those are the ones you want to look for!

 

The tools are there, it's up to you to use them. There are thousands of excellent caches just waiting for you to come find them. There's no point in complaining about the ones that you don't want to go find; just don't go find them!

Link to comment

 

To be honest, I look at every cache page BEFORE I go out hunting. How else will I know if I'm going to be interested in the cache or not? Sometimes I feel like some park and grabs, sometimes I feel like a power trail, sometimes I feel like hiking several miles, or driving down country roads. I look for an area to go, run a pocket query and read through the cache pages; plan my day.

 

 

That's how I usually do it, too. On the other hand, sometimes I just grab my Garmin and go. It always has the 500 closest unfound-by-me caches to my house loaded in it.

 

But when I choose to grab it and go, I don't complain because it leads me somewhere I didn't especially care for. I can either lift the lamp-post-skirt and sign the log, or I can go on to the next cache without searching. I'm finding that I am choosing the latter more often than I used to.

 

Whichever choice I make, I recognize that it is, indeed, my choice. I know I don't have to find them all, and I know a lot of people do enjoy the ones that I don't care for.

 

Honestly, I have a lot of friends who do it the same way you're describing and I've gone with them. And you're right about making a choice. That's what the key factor is here. Even if I end up not liking the hide itself when I cache, I try to find something to enjoy about the experience. Heck, being alive and having the means to explore a hobby I like is sometimes all I need :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I have a very simple question. Why should not there be an attribute or cache type for "power trails" and for mindless caches for numbers hounds that do not show you something interesting or is hid in a creative way? While I do not think these caches should be allowed, it just amazes me how the numbers hounds don't support this as middle ground.

I suspect that those who enjoy power trails would not object to a power trail attribute, though they are easy to spot without one.

 

However, you might not want the results of a power trail attribute as it would tend to encourage the creation of more power trails.

Link to comment

Earlier this year, I went to Denver - I had over 3,000 caches just in the Denver vicinity

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

 

Use the tools that are available to you. Start by filtering out micros. That's going to get rid of a lot of the caches you don't like. It might eliminate a few that you would like, but so what? You'll still have more "good" caches than you'll have time to search for.

 

Then look at them on a map. See all those caches right next to the highway? And all those in parking lots? Don't look for them! See the ones in the parks, and along the greenway trails, and up in the mountains? Those are the ones you want to look for!

 

The tools are there, it's up to you to use them. There are thousands of excellent caches just waiting for you to come find them. There's no point in complaining about the ones that you don't want to go find; just don't go find them!

 

I don't think it's a matter of compaining about preference. I, and many others, think power trails are actually potentially bad for geocaching's future. I won't quote my previous post, but those thoughts are just a few posts earlier.

Link to comment
These power trail hides just increase contact with non-cachers and create geo trails from parking and walking with the frequency of finds...There are many new road pull-offs created.

I have mixed feelings about power trails. On one hand I think it would be a blast to do something like the ET series, but on the other it upsets me that people don't pay attention to the cache pages like for the alien head and drive to the caches even though they've been asked not to on the cache page.

 

Is getting to a cache quickly worth so much that finders will take the chance that it will give caching a bad name and anger those who oversee these lands and possibly get caching banned?

 

I definitely see where you're coming from Skippermark (and M5, nice post earlier). I suppose I have mixed feelings myself, when it comes to what you're mentioning. It did really bother me to see tire tracks out on the Alien Head trail when we were hiking it.

 

As for myotis, the way that you present yourself just makes you look like an angry rude close-minded person. Maybe we can understand your point better if you stop being so insulting and get off that high horse you rode in on. No one's better than anyone else in this game, no matter how long you've been caching, or how many finds you have, or how you choose to play.

Link to comment

Earlier this year, I went to Denver - I had over 3,000 caches just in the Denver vicinity

 

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

 

Use the tools that are available to you. Start by filtering out micros. That's going to get rid of a lot of the caches you don't like. It might eliminate a few that you would like, but so what? You'll still have more "good" caches than you'll have time to search for.

 

Then look at them on a map. See all those caches right next to the highway? And all those in parking lots? Don't look for them! See the ones in the parks, and along the greenway trails, and up in the mountains? Those are the ones you want to look for!

 

The tools are there, it's up to you to use them. There are thousands of excellent caches just waiting for you to come find them. There's no point in complaining about the ones that you don't want to go find; just don't go find them!

 

It's too bad he only tried for two caches in the area. Denver has a lot of fantastic caches.

Link to comment

 

To be honest, I look at every cache page BEFORE I go out hunting. How else will I know if I'm going to be interested in the cache or not? Sometimes I feel like some park and grabs, sometimes I feel like a power trail, sometimes I feel like hiking several miles, or driving down country roads. I look for an area to go, run a pocket query and read through the cache pages; plan my day.

 

 

That's how I usually do it, too. On the other hand, sometimes I just grab my Garmin and go. It always has the 500 closest unfound-by-me caches to my house loaded in it.

 

But when I choose to grab it and go, I don't complain because it leads me somewhere I didn't especially care for. I can either lift the lamp-post-skirt and sign the log, or I can go on to the next cache without searching. I'm finding that I am choosing the latter more often than I used to.

 

Whichever choice I make, I recognize that it is, indeed, my choice. I know I don't have to find them all, and I know a lot of people do enjoy the ones that I don't care for.

 

Honestly, ... Even if I end up not liking the hide itself when I cache, I try to find something to enjoy about the experience. Heck, being alive and having the means to explore a hobby I like is sometimes all I need :rolleyes:

 

Hey N/S has it nailed.

 

Speaking as one who had a major " life speed bump " and survived. Came out the other end with a whole new perspective on life.

 

Every morning that I wake up it is >>> " wow I have an extra day ... let me squeeze all I can out of it. To me each extra day is kind of like a gift ... Christmas Gift, if you are so inclined ". Grab it squeeze it relish it, find the specialness in it. Just like squeezing something special out of a lame bonehead cache.

 

To me the E.T. Trail was special just because it was there. We went, we explored, we experienced some of it.

N/S, Patsu and myself set no records, however we shared fellowship, overcame some adversity and we have a unique unspoken bond with our fellow E.T. Trail Travelers.

 

73's and Geo Hugggggzzzzzzzzzz to all.

Edited by humboldt flier
Link to comment

Here is another example of mindless cache placement:

 

http://goo.gl/O9q1R

 

This is what happens when the only consideration is providing another find.

 

 

PS, I have found many caches in Denver over the years. This was the first time I had visited Denver when there so many caches that there was no reasonable way to deal with all the caches..

Link to comment

[Earlier this year, I went to Denver - I had over 3,000 caches just in the Denver vicinity (in earlier days I could cover most of CO with 500 caches). For argument sake, lets say there are 3,000 caches. If one spent 30 seconds per cache page, it would take 25 hours. I ended up only trying for 2 caches on the trip.

Yep. Living in Denver I can definitely confirm what you experienced. There are a LOT of caches to choose from here. Which brings us back to the earlier conversation on how to find caches that appeal to you.

 

I've never found it hard to find caches that appeal to my mood at the moment using the tools that Groundspeak provides. My main tool is the Google Map tool.

 

If I'm in the mood for some 'light' caching then the 1-star & 1.5 star caches are easy to find in the cache-dense areas.

 

If I'm in the mood to be challenged, then I take a look at the 2.5 & up caches.

 

If I'm interested in a walk and scenery, then I look for caches in parks or along the many trails (Highline Canal and others) that run through the metro area. These are easy to spot with the Google Map feature.

 

If you're into swag (I'm not), it's easy to filter on size.

 

Heck, if you're into the way caching 'used to be' then filter on the date placed and only visit old caches.

 

Like cachers in any area, you learn the tendencies of the various CO's. In my area, I know the Sandhillers create challenging hides. Dashpeeg really likes to have fun with his hides and has created his own mythical storyline. CFBear has an enormous range of camouflage techniques. Maddie Moof has created her own twist on LPC's. Hobo Hank has created a persona that puts out very camouflaged containers. Grassenhopper is putting out some very challenging hides. Green Cat & Snuggly Kitten have put some very interesting seriies. And so on.

 

Point is...I can find a cache to my liking by visiting cachers who put out the type of caches I like. If someone is visiting this area, they could get the lay of the land by posting on the Southwest board here, the Colorado caching website, or contacting cachers in the area.

 

We're very fortunate to live in a cache-dense area. While there may be more caches we don't like, there are also more cashes that we do like.

 

The tools and resources are out there to find caches that tickle your fancy.

Link to comment

 

PS, I have found many caches in Denver over the years. This was the first time I had visited Denver when there so many caches that there was no reasonable way to deal with all the caches..

 

There are LOTS of reasonable ways to deal with all of the caches, you just don't want to hear about them. To re-iterate:

 

1) PQ with filters. Eliminate all micros and all terrain, difficulty < 2.

 

2) Use the "search with google maps" option to select caches that are not in parking lots or right next to roads.

 

3) Or combine the two above. Use the filtered PQ, then open it in Google Earth and select caches in interesting looking places.

 

Thousands of people manage to go geocaching in Denver, and enjoy it. To suggest that there's "no reasonable way to deal with all the caches" is nonsense. It makes it appear that you simply like to complain.

 

I'll re-iterate what I said earlier in the thread: You're correct. Geocaching isn't the game it was when you started. It used to be fun, now it sucks. You should quit.

Link to comment

Here is another example of mindless cache placement:

 

http://goo.gl/O9q1R

 

This is what happens when the only consideration is providing another find.

 

 

I considered starting a thread about that one, but to heck with it. Yesterday, Green Bay Wisconsin, baseball field micro blown up by bomb squad. Street view shows it in full view of several houses across the street, and a few hundred feet from a pre-school (which is who alerted the police). Yep, bad idea. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Here is another example of mindless cache placement:

 

http://goo.gl/O9q1R

 

This is what happens when the only consideration is providing another find.

 

 

I considered starting a thread about that one, but to heck with it. Yesterday, Green Bay Wisconsin, baseball field micro blown up by bomb squad. Street view shows it in full view of several houses across the street, and a few hundred feet from a pre-school (which is who alerted the police). Yep, bad idea. :rolleyes:

Looks to be about 30' from the school parking lot.

Link to comment

 

PS, I have found many caches in Denver over the years. This was the first time I had visited Denver when there so many caches that there was no reasonable way to deal with all the caches..

 

There are LOTS of reasonable ways to deal with all of the caches, you just don't want to hear about them. To re-iterate:

 

1) PQ with filters. Eliminate all micros and all terrain, difficulty < 2.

 

2) Use the "search with google maps" option to select caches that are not in parking lots or right next to roads.

 

3) Or combine the two above. Use the filtered PQ, then open it in Google Earth and select caches in interesting looking places.

 

Thousands of people manage to go geocaching in Denver, and enjoy it. To suggest that there's "no reasonable way to deal with all the caches" is nonsense. It makes it appear that you simply like to complain.

 

I'll re-iterate what I said earlier in the thread: You're correct. Geocaching isn't the game it was when you started. It used to be fun, now it sucks. You should quit.

 

C'mon GeoGeeBee. I've never seen you so hostile. Respected poster and moderator (of the getting started forum) BrianSnat has said dozens of times there's no way to filter out the garbage. You gonna tell Snat, "Geocaching sucks, you should quit"? :rolleyes:

 

I for one feel for Myotis here. OK, so Geocaching changed. Did it have to? Why? Not everything has to change. The product my employer manufacturers hasn't changed since the 1930's. And never really will as long as there's a market for it. I'm thinking maybe Myotis would have like it better if Geocaching hadn't changed. Nothing wrong with that.

 

People also never seem to take into account where a poster is from. Illinois. Much of the State has in fact been taken over by numbers cachers with 500==>thousands of hides. In many of the area's urban micros and rural roadside micros are the overwhelmingly dominant type of placement. Example, GC number, town, and Rt. No. removed to protect the spewer I mean innocent. :)

 

5142883473_a3f4c98484.jpg

 

Psst. It's a keyhoder on the transformer. ;) People should sit there and Google street view cache page after cache page of this? Filter out all micros and all caches rated under 2/2? Not to mention the hundreds of parking lot micros I've seen rated over a 2 that have a statement "difficulty rating due to the muggle factor" or something along those lines.

Link to comment

Heck, if you're into the way caching 'used to be' then filter on the date placed and only visit old caches.

Not 100% accurate. I found a cache hid Sept. 2000. I'm sure our local mindless cache experts would rate it as a useless, mindless cache. It was a film canister in a stop sign pole. But maybe since it was so old we can give it a pass on mindless and call it a wonderful cache.

Link to comment

Heck, if you're into the way caching 'used to be' then filter on the date placed and only visit old caches.

Not 100% accurate. I found a cache hid Sept. 2000. I'm sure our local mindless cache experts would rate it as a useless, mindless cache. It was a film canister in a stop sign pole. But maybe since it was so old we can give it a pass on mindless and call it a wonderful cache.

I didn't think mindless caches existed back then. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Heck, if you're into the way caching 'used to be' then filter on the date placed and only visit old caches.

Not 100% accurate. I found a cache hid Sept. 2000. I'm sure our local mindless cache experts would rate it as a useless, mindless cache. It was a film canister in a stop sign pole. But maybe since it was so old we can give it a pass on mindless and call it a wonderful cache.

I didn't think mindless caches existed back then. :rolleyes:

 

In 2000 it was probably unique.

Link to comment

Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

 

Ok, if its so easy, here is your chance to prove it.

 

This is downtown St Louis: N38 37.119 W90 11.124

 

If dealing with this is so easy, it should be no problem for one of you in the next couple of hours send me two listings of caches: 1) Quality caches within 50 miles of these cords and 2) Powertrails, mindless caches within 50 miles of the cords.

 

Email me your gpx files and I will let everyone know how you did.

Link to comment
Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

i've suggested an attribute for powertrails long time ago. everybody seemed to like it, as it's a win-win situation for both parties. of course it was never implemented.

Link to comment

Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

 

Ok, if its so easy, here is your chance to prove it.

 

This is downtown St Louis: N38 37.119 W90 11.124

 

If dealing with this is so easy, it should be no problem for one of you in the next couple of hours send me two listings of caches: 1) Quality caches within 50 miles of these cords and 2) Powertrails, mindless caches within 50 miles of the cords.

 

Email me your gpx files and I will let everyone know how you did.

 

I think you're going to need to open a new thread for that, but... "quality" is subjective. Are you looking for caches that I would enjoy or caches that you would enjoy. I can produce the former but I'm not a mind reader of sufficient skill to produce the latter.

Link to comment

Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

 

Ok, if its so easy, here is your chance to prove it.

 

This is downtown St Louis: N38 37.119 W90 11.124

 

If dealing with this is so easy, it should be no problem for one of you in the next couple of hours send me two listings of caches: 1) Quality caches within 50 miles of these cords and 2) Powertrails, mindless caches within 50 miles of the cords.

 

Email me your gpx files and I will let everyone know how you did.

Define what "quality cache" means to you.

Link to comment

Well, I thought my previous posts were clear enough on what I was talking about. To be clearer seperate the caches that take you to an nice/interesting location or are a creative way to hide a cache from the ones that are mainly placed to provide the number hounds another find. A cache in a park near a playground or in a trashy area would not be counted as a quality cache.

Link to comment
Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

i've suggested an attribute for powertrails long time ago. everybody seemed to like it, as it's a win-win situation for both parties. of course it was never implemented.

 

Attribute, icon, and souvenir Hmmmmmm. Food for thought

Link to comment
Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

Okay, someone started a new thread for the "Mindless Cache Placement" thread so it wouldn't be talked about here.

 

This thread is for discussing world record cache runs. If you want to talk about ways to filter out certain types of caches, please start a new thread about that. I don't want to have to hand out tickets.

Link to comment
Hmmm-no one explained why it is not reasonable for there to be a cache type or atribute to filter out the mindless caches and power trails. Instead, the same old its easy to deal with.

i've suggested an attribute for powertrails long time ago. everybody seemed to like it, as it's a win-win situation for both parties. of course it was never implemented.

 

I've never seen anyone who wasn't in favor of a power trail attribute. But 'mindless caches' is subjective, so I don't think there's going to be a power trail for that. Since you probably consider anything that is a park and grab to be mindless, there already is an attribute for that one.

Link to comment

Well, I thought my previous posts were clear enough on what I was talking about. To be clearer seperate the caches that take you to an nice/interesting location or are a creative way to hide a cache from the ones that are mainly placed to provide the number hounds another find. A cache in a park near a playground or in a trashy area would not be counted as a quality cache.

 

Actually, you just stated a bunch of what you didn't like. And what you consider to be a 'nice/interesting location' or 'creative' may be totally different from what someone else considers.

 

Edit: Sorry Skippermark, I just saw your post. I'll no longer talk about this subject in this thread. My apologies.

Edited by nymphnsatyr
Link to comment

Well, I thought my previous posts were clear enough on what I was talking about. To be clearer seperate the caches that take you to an nice/interesting location or are a creative way to hide a cache from the ones that are mainly placed to provide the number hounds another find. A cache in a park near a playground or in a trashy area would not be counted as a quality cache.

Well...Taking my own advice. I found the website for the St. Louis Geocachers. That lead me to this thread which pointed to this comment:

Suggest you try the caches along the Lewis and Clark trail in the Busch Wildlife area. There are some great views of the river starting about a mile from the trailhead. The Lewis and Clark trails split 2 or 3 miles from the trailhead. The entire loop is quite long, so be prepared. I don't recall exactly, but I think the longer of the two is 7 miles or so. The shorter is in the neighborhood of 4-5 miles?

 

If you are interested in history, the Hamburg trail, which runs alongside Highway 94, is a cache-rich area. There are occasional signboards with information on the history of the area. This one is best done on a bike because it's a long, linear out and back hike. Individual segments can be done on foot since there are parking lots at frequent intervals.

 

For a road less traveled hiking experience, you might try the caches in the Lost Valley area at Busch Wildlife. No particularly spectacular views, but much less heavily used.

 

Somewhat farther from home, if your daughter (or you) likes Harry Potter, try the HP series in Cliff Cave County park.

And this:

For shorter walks, try the south end of Queeny Park (and/or attend the SLAGA picnic on 10/10). Or try Kirkwood Park at Geyer Road and West Adams. Forest Park has a lot of caches as well, but they tend to be more spread out.

This page has "best of" awards.

 

There is also this bookmark list by members. Here's an example of one bookmark, the 'Shaw' series looks interesting.

 

Here's a list of trails.

 

St. Louis Parks.

 

Cacher's that might be worth checking out:

Brawny Bear

L Frank and DenMother

CDS231

RGS

Strider

 

Heck, post on their website for advice. Contact local geocachers. Pick an interesting trail and grab the caches along the way. Visit a park that looks interesting. Try their "best of" caches.

 

But then, for me, half the fun is finding the places and exploring a new area. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

That's amazing!

 

The 1157 caches in 24 hours, I assume? Yippee, we're back on topic!!

 

A new World Record? I love this subject!

 

So.... in order to attain that many caches in 24 hours.... that would be one cache in less than a minute. :rolleyes:

I see many groups doing 1021 in 12 hours....so it must be easy peasy. ;)

Link to comment

That's amazing!

 

The 1157 caches in 24 hours, I assume? Yippee, we're back on topic!!

 

A new World Record? I love this subject!

 

So.... in order to attain that many caches in 24 hours.... that would be one cache in less than a minute. :rolleyes:

I see many groups doing 1021 in 12 hours....so it must be easy peasy. ;)

 

Be careful what you wish for you mite just get it :)

 

And on that note extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

Do you have documented proof from and out side source that you did in fact set a new record ?

 

You made the claim so it falls to you to provide the proof. We shouldn't have to check the logs.

So until you can its just a claim is it not?

 

As it stand now GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS doesn't even have a listing for geocaching.

So whose world record are you claiming to have broken?

Link to comment

Be careful what you wish for you mite just get it :rolleyes:

 

And on that note extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

Do you have documented proof from and out side source that you did in fact set a new record ?

 

You made the claim so it falls to you to provide the proof. We shouldn't have to check the logs.

So until you can its just a claim is it not?

 

As it stand now GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS doesn't even have a listing for geocaching.

So whose world record are you claiming to have broken?

 

Read this entire thread then take a trip to the ET highway and try it for yourself (even for a couple of hours) then come back and tell us what you found. Several people have confirmed that it's possible for any team that has sufficient stamina.

 

Just because Guinness doesn't have it in their book doesn't mean it's not a record.

Link to comment

Be careful what you wish for you mite just get it :rolleyes:

 

And on that note extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

Do you have documented proof from and out side source that you did in fact set a new record ?

 

You made the claim so it falls to you to provide the proof. We shouldn't have to check the logs.

So until you can its just a claim is it not?

 

As it stand now GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS doesn't even have a listing for geocaching.

So whose world record are you claiming to have broken?

 

Read this entire thread then take a trip to the ET highway and try it for yourself (even for a couple of hours) then come back and tell us what you found. Several people have confirmed that it's possible for any team that has sufficient stamina.

 

Just because Guinness doesn't have it in their book doesn't mean it's not a record.

 

 

Maybe you should reread my post nowhere did I say it couldn't be done.

And I ask again whose record did they break ?

 

When you make and extraordinary claim you need to provide extraordinary proof.

Link to comment

Be careful what you wish for you mite just get it :unsure:

 

And on that note extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

Do you have documented proof from and out side source that you did in fact set a new record ?

 

You made the claim so it falls to you to provide the proof. We shouldn't have to check the logs.

So until you can its just a claim is it not?

 

As it stand now GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS doesn't even have a listing for geocaching.

So whose world record are you claiming to have broken?

1. There is no outside authority for geocaching records. Requiring such is futile.

2. Feel free to check, if you don't believe them. (Though a number of these caches have since gone missing.)

3. As was mentioned by sdarken, a record does not require a beer brewers blessing.

 

It's up to you to believe it or not, just as with everything else in Geocaching.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...