How the heck do you find a cache every 90 seconds

[Ranger Fox]

At times, I think about the serious damage you can do if you had two or three cars leapfrogging on those trails. However, the only times I've been able to do leapfrogging were when the available caches in an area were only a few hundred.

 

I always assumed that leapfrogging didn't involve finding "every other cache", but that one vehicle might start at one end of a trail and another vehicle at the other, or with three vehicles the PT would be broken up into thirds and each vehicle would start, going the same direction, a cache a the beginning, 1/3 of the way, and 2/3rds of the way along the trail.

This is my version of leapfrogging: The lead car keeps finding the next cache until passed by one of the trailing cars. The trailing cars skip all caches until they pass the leading car. This format allows the free exchange of passengers amongst cars and no advance distribution of supplies amongst the cars. Participants can visibly see the progress made towards finishing the power trail and can more accurately gauge completion times. The dynamic that develops between the vehicles' participants enhances the experience. However, leapfrogging is unwieldy once the number of vehicles increases to four, vehicles go off on side roads for unannounced "one-offs", or caches are on varying sides of the road (for this latter one, you can start at either end and the teams only do caches on the right side of the road--but that's only if it's impractical to cross the road).

 

I heard about what you mentioned, even experimented with it on a small sub-hundred run. However, from experience, I can definitely say the leapfrogging I'm familiar with is the most enjoyable option I've found. You get a little fun competition between the vehicles going, with the people in the lead car trying to do as many caches as possible before being passed by a trailing car. There's a lot to be said for this method on long power trails.

 

Just like anything, you choose the right tool or tactic to accomplish the job in the time allowed. If you have enough time to keep the vehicles together and stop for each cache, that's ideal and recommended.

[+ChileHead]

This is my version of leapfrogging: The lead car keeps finding the next cache until passed by one of the trailing cars. The trailing cars skip all caches until they pass the leading car.

 

So do you claim finds on all the containers, or just the one your car found?

[jholly]

There were a few caches that i found on one side, by myself, while others in the group found on the other. Even though i was part of the group (team), i just couldn't justify claiming finds on the ones i didn't witness being found. I didn't log those. It seemed kinda strange to me that everyone else in the group logged them all but to be honest, it didn't bother me at all.

 

It doesn't bother me either if people want to privately claim finds they did not personally find. But I does irritate me when they publicly declare "Look at me, be amazed at my geocaching skill and stamina, I found 960 caches in a day" when they actually mean, the group I was with found 960 caches in a day. Group records don't impress me - the bigger the group the more the finds...shrug.

I guess you always cache by yourself. Heavens forbid you go caching with someone else and they find the cache and you can't log it.

[+niraD]

But I does irritate me when they publicly declare "Look at me, be amazed at my geocaching skill and stamina, I found 960 caches in a day" when they actually mean, the group I was with found 960 caches in a day.

Is anyone publicly declaring anything like this?

 

Or are others merely noticing their "Best Day" stats?

 

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day.

[4wheelin_fool]

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day. That's a cache every 90 seconds.

 

C'mon, even Santa Claus doesn't move from house to house that fast without burning up due to friction with atmosphere. What's the secret?

The secret is: "Who Cares?" Come on, does this affect your life in any way? I guess it does if you are a control freak. Get on with your life and stop worrying about people posting fake numbers on the internet. Best of luck my friend.

Wow, do you always call people control freaks when all they wanna know the secret to how something is done? Best of luck to you too brother, and thanks for making this a welcome place to ask questions =)

 

They post the numbers to impress others, that is the entire point of the exercise for most.

 

Next, someone asks how they did it. Then all of a sudden it's a private affair, nobody's business and a personal matter.

[+Don_J]

All this is right. I've had several 500+ days and a few 1000+ days; I'm very familiar with efficiency. I decline to publish my statistics or records; I do not want to be dragged into some inane competition.

 

When doing power trails, three people are a necessity and everyone has to be good at what they do. The driver must be able to stop as close as possible to the cache. One person is a jumper. On these desert runs, I prefer to hang outside the car, standing on the floorboard, my hands grasping the vehicle's roof rack (if a van's sliding door isn't there, an SUV's running board can be used). I hop off the vehicle before it comes to a complete stop; doing so transfers the motion to me and I can come to a sliding stop right at the cache, not using any of my own energy for the deployment. For optimal efficiency, you replace the cache. Once the jumper is back on/in the car, the driver takes off again. The jumper hands the cache to the scribe, who is doing the stickers, stamps, paper slips, or name writing. In that same moment, the scribe hands the jumper the next cache. If you have a fourth person, that person takes up whatever slack remains: helping the scribe, handing out food and water, taking pictures or video, or assisting the driver with spotting the cache. My travel caching group has come up with 25 being the ideal time to switch; no one gets tired and everyone knows their number and switch times if there are four people (when there are three, we go every 33). If the jumper has to use his or her GPSr or the driver doesn't stop right at the cache, you're already losing time. As for food, you pack a cooler and ice ahead of time; you eat on the go and don't stop caching. I suggest, for snacks, baby carrots; they've been a hit on every run I've been a part of. It's healthy, they're small, and they leave no mess. I also liked jelly beans for quick energy. Alternate between water, soda, and sports drinks so you don't get tired of the taste.

 

I've also made videos of my time doing this, including one from a jumper's perspective. For the sake of this thread, I made the video I posted to facebook public. The driver was driving slowly, so I averaged only one cache a minute. When I was back out there last month, I was driving most of the time, and I was fast. The video is barely three minutes long because it's difficult to split your attention between keeping a good video angle and noticing the cache. Anyway, for a little while, I was averaging a cache every 45 seconds. All this seems unbelievable until you're in that situation. Heed the advice of those who were and you'll do well.

 

At times, I think about the serious damage you can do if you had two or three cars leapfrogging on those trails. However, the only times I've been able to do leapfrogging were when the available caches in an area were only a few hundred.

 

I wonder what the fine is for riding on the outside of a vehicle?. I also wonder if at that point, the Nevada Office of public safety, (state patrol), will say, "enough's enough", "these people are too stupid for their own good, we have to stop this".

[+Don_J]

 

 

At times, I think about the serious damage you can do if you had two or three cars leapfrogging on those trails. However, the only times I've been able to do leapfrogging were when the available caches in an area were only a few hundred.

 

I always assumed that leapfrogging didn't involve finding "every other cache", but that one vehicle might start at one end of a trail and another vehicle at the other, or with three vehicles the PT would be broken up into thirds and each vehicle would start, going the same direction, a cache a the beginning, 1/3 of the way, and 2/3rds of the way along the trail.

 

Ever play leapfrog as a kid? You crouch down like a frog and the guy behind you leaps over you, then you do the same. In other words you stop at cache A, your friend drives past you to cache B and then you drive past him to cache C. Of course, you never stopped and had anything to do with cache B, but you log it anyway. I figure if I'm going to make that leap, I may as well just drive to the end of the road and say that I found all of them.

 

There are all kinds of way to pretend that you found a cache and rack up your numbers. Heck, the ultimate super cacher logged all 30 caches on a trail that I hiked a week later. Someone must have gone and erased his signatures from all of the trail caches because the only cache that I actually saw his signature on was the one at the trail head.

[+Don_J]

At times, I think about the serious damage you can do if you had two or three cars leapfrogging on those trails. However, the only times I've been able to do leapfrogging were when the available caches in an area were only a few hundred.

 

I always assumed that leapfrogging didn't involve finding "every other cache", but that one vehicle might start at one end of a trail and another vehicle at the other, or with three vehicles the PT would be broken up into thirds and each vehicle would start, going the same direction, a cache a the beginning, 1/3 of the way, and 2/3rds of the way along the trail.

This is my version of leapfrogging: The lead car keeps finding the next cache until passed by one of the trailing cars. The trailing cars skip all caches until they pass the leading car. This format allows the free exchange of passengers amongst cars and no advance distribution of supplies amongst the cars. Participants can visibly see the progress made towards finishing the power trail and can more accurately gauge completion times. The dynamic that develops between the vehicles' participants enhances the experience. However, leapfrogging is unwieldy once the number of vehicles increases to four, vehicles go off on side roads for unannounced "one-offs", or caches are on varying sides of the road (for this latter one, you can start at either end and the teams only do caches on the right side of the road--but that's only if it's impractical to cross the road).

 

I heard about what you mentioned, even experimented with it on a small sub-hundred run. However, from experience, I can definitely say the leapfrogging I'm familiar with is the most enjoyable option I've found. You get a little fun competition between the vehicles going, with the people in the lead car trying to do as many caches as possible before being passed by a trailing car. There's a lot to be said for this method on long power trails.

 

Just like anything, you choose the right tool or tactic to accomplish the job in the time allowed. If you have enough time to keep the vehicles together and stop for each cache, that's ideal and recommended.

 

A lot to be said? "Cheating" is only one word.

 

There's a cache on my way to work that I've been meaning to stop for. The other day, I saw one of my friends there looking for it. I was late so I couldn't stop, but he found it and logged it. Should I just declare "Power trail Rules", and log it because I drove by while someone else was finding it?

 

The whole thing sounds kind of silly, doesn't it.

[+briansnat]

There were a few caches that i found on one side, by myself, while others in the group found on the other. Even though i was part of the group (team), i just couldn't justify claiming finds on the ones i didn't witness being found. I didn't log those. It seemed kinda strange to me that everyone else in the group logged them all but to be honest, it didn't bother me at all.

 

It doesn't bother me either if people want to privately claim finds they did not personally find. But I does irritate me when they publicly declare "Look at me, be amazed at my geocaching skill and stamina, I found 960 caches in a day" when they actually mean, the group I was with found 960 caches in a day. Group records don't impress me - the bigger the group the more the finds...shrug.

I guess you always cache by yourself. Heavens forbid you go caching with someone else and they find the cache and you can't log it.

 

I think a lot of cachers will acknowledge there is a huge difference between being physically at ground zero with a team, actively assisting with the hunt and driving past ground zero at 50 MPH. In the first case you are geocaching. In the second you are... uh, driving.

[+retiredbucks]

How does one go about locating a power trail like the ET highway? Is there a way to search in my area for one? Thanks to any and all who reply.

[jholly]

How does one go about locating a power trail like the ET highway? Is there a way to search in my area for one? Thanks to any and all who reply.

The map is your friend. If you see a long string of caches zoom in and take a look.

 

Edit: I see lots of smaller trails, nothing of an ET Highway or Route 66 magnitude. But those two trails are out in the middle of nowhere with miles of empty roads and open range. As an example take look around Lake Parish when you are zoomed out.

Edited September 18, 2013 by jholly

[+JohnnyVegas]

they have rubber stamps with the same names on them, I saw a cache today that was logged with a rubber stamp that had two cache names on them and no they are not from the same family. That is all I am going to say about it, the last time this subject came up I kicked out of the forums for a month.

[+wimseyguy]

Huh? What does the relationship of the cachers on the rubber stamp have to do with anything?

I know several unrelated cachers who have had stamps made because they cache together frequently.

And our group of four had custom stamps made for the two trips we made out west in recent years.

[+MisterE250]

I don't like power trails - I don't consider them real caching, like in the video I see someone posted, when they're all hidden the same way right next to a road.

 

That takes all of the fun out of geocaching and isn't true numbers in my eyes. To me, geocaching isn't about the numbers, it's about the quality of a hide. 500 film canister geocaches hidden underneath rocks on a 250 mile stretch of highway? Boring, unsatisfying and unoriginal.

 

I like caches that take a bit of thinking and that are a challenge. That's a true geocache in my eyes, not something you can hop out of a car every 0.5 miles and get a thousand of in a day.

 

All above is in my own opinion and isn't meant to be taken offensively. Everyone is entitled to their own 'style' and can enjoy geocaching in their own way.

Edited September 20, 2013 by MisterE250

[+dprovan]

they have rubber stamps with the same names on them, I saw a cache today that was logged with a rubber stamp that had two cache names on them and no they are not from the same family. That is all I am going to say about it, the last time this subject came up I kicked out of the forums for a month.

I think you're suggesting that people use the rubber stamp even when they're caching without the other person, but that's not my experience. There are lots of people in my area that often go caching together, and they have a stamp for when they do. They have another stamp for when they're caching alone and still others for when they're caching with other people.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Huh? What does the relationship of the cachers on the rubber stamp have to do with anything?

I know several unrelated cachers who have had stamps made because they cache together frequently.

And our group of four had custom stamps made for the two trips we made out west in recent years.

I'll not mention names that is what got me kicked out of the forums last time, I know the two cachers in question and they do not cache together on a regular basis. Both names are on the same rubber stamp. What they do is split up with matching stamps then each cacher logs the finds he/she made as well as the finds the other person made, This is a common practice with some cachers. The geocachers in question are loging finds that they did not make.

[vagabond]

If the e.t highway caches are sooooooo easy that you can run up those numbers, then why are they rated 1.5 star difficulty?

 

Because that is the default and it is a lot of clicks to change it for that many caches.

From what I've read the 2nd version of the ET trail is a little different, the caches are no longer next to the sign posts along side the road they are further off the road and none on blind curves

We haven't done the new version, but we may do a bit of it next month on our way home from Colorado

[+Sagefox]

 

Because that is the default and it is a lot of clicks to change it for that many caches.

 

Makes sense. Even more laziness/bad practices associated with power trails than I even imagined.

 

Locating/buying 100, 300, 900 cache containers, printing out and cuting up that many logsheets, buying that many plastic bags, stuffing the bags (although I doubt bags are needed in the Mojave desert), capping the containers, filling the tank, driving 100 miles out into the desert, stopping and placing caches every 528 feet, taking a waypoint at each stop, keeping track of those waypoints, driving back home, writing up and submitting all those cache pages strikes me as anything but lazy.

 

Now on LPC micro in an urban area, that strikes me a lazy.

[+4thnoel]

Being new to the game, less then 2 years. I have read all the posts on here about the subject. I find that if you use several people to find 5 at a time and everyone claims it as a find, I think that is cheating. I only log the ones I have actually touched. I came close to a couple but wasps kept me from it and I did not log it as a find. I have a few people that go with me but we do it one at a time and just one log on it. Three of us go and only one logs the find. After all, I do not want people looking at my stats and thinking "how can she get so many in one day" if I am cheating... I know it makes no difference to many of you but cheating is cheating. And being just a game makes it worse. Why cheat on something that will get you nowhere. Just my humble opinion but such is life.

[jholly]

Being new to the game, less then 2 years. I have read all the posts on here about the subject. I find that if you use several people to find 5 at a time and everyone claims it as a find, I think that is cheating. I only log the ones I have actually touched. I came close to a couple but wasps kept me from it and I did not log it as a find. I have a few people that go with me but we do it one at a time and just one log on it. Three of us go and only one logs the find. After all, I do not want people looking at my stats and thinking "how can she get so many in one day" if I am cheating... I know it makes no difference to many of you but cheating is cheating. And being just a game makes it worse. Why cheat on something that will get you nowhere. Just my humble opinion but such is life.

 

So if I do 130 in one day by myself I'm cheating? Interesting. If I do 55 or so in one day on a 250 mile drive I'm cheating? Don't think so.

[+niraD]

I have a few people that go with me but we do it one at a time and just one log on it. Three of us go and only one logs the find.

Does anyone have a good name for this type of group geocaching? The styles I'm familiar with are:

 

Three Musketeers – As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over, and all members of the group log their find.

 

Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk – When a member of the group spots the cache, they walk elsewhere (to not give away the cache's location), then call out, “huckle-buckle-beanstalk!” (or whatever word or phrase the group has decided on). This continues until everyone in the group has either spotted the cache, or given up, after which the cache is retrieved and logged.

 

And of course, there are various hybrids between the two (e.g., starting with Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk, but throwing more and more hints and those who have not yet found the cache as time goes by). But now we also have:

 

[some appropriate name here] - As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over, and only that one person logs the find.

[+Sagefox]

I find that if you use several people to find 5 at a time and everyone claims it as a find, I think that is cheating. I know it makes no difference to many of you but cheating is cheating. And being just a game makes it worse. Why cheat on something that will get you nowhere. Just my humble opinion but such is life.

 

I don't believe you will find a high percentage of forum posters that believe it is o.k. to have five cachers find five different caches at the same time and all log them as found. You will find lots of folks who say they don't like it but since it does not affect their game they don't care if others do it.

 

I have a few people that go with me but we do it one at a time and just one log on it. Three of us go and only one logs the find.

 

In Group Caching (non-power trails) it is very rare that folks log caches the way you suggest. I have cached with many different groups and I've owned a lot of caches and I've read tons of cache logs for many years and I've only ever met one person who logs your way and that was nine years ago.

 

When groups cache together the hunt typically ends when one of the group of those present finds the container and all log the find. You might want to consider the more common usage of the word cache. When supplies for hikers are cached and the group gets to the hiding spot one of them finds it and they ALL eat.

 

I only log the ones I have actually touched.

 

Yes. And all three in your group can simply touch that cache and then all log it as found.

 

After a while I'm sure you would find that it is not actually necessary to touch the cache as long as you are present when it is found, you can see it and you or someone in your group signs for you. If you think this cheating you might want to consider that probably 95% (Fizzy definition) of all folks caching in groups use this method. It is the way this game has always been played.

[+redsox_mark]

 

[some appropriate name here] - As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over, and only that one person logs the find.

 

How about "Sudden Death" (taking the term from the sporting context). I.e. as soon as the first person "scores", the game is over. The others have lost and can't log the find.

 

I've never seen it played this way myself.

[+OZ2CPU]

we tried to make a little power trail here in Denmark :-)

 

http://coord.info/GC43AG3

 

We released it 1 month ago, and allready we see people show up from all over Europe to visit it,

and have a go..

People invent all kinds of new funny games,

like how many can you find by foot ? by cycle ? by car ?

pr hr, pr date.

Some people dont like to find that many, and that is also perfectly fine.

Geocaching is all about find out what you like and just do that :-)

 

We do NOT alow parallel team work logged under one unique name

that is what we call cheating !!

however we can not find out if people do this or not, their own problem..

We also dont alow container swapping, or Throwdowns.

 

So far the record we belive is valid and performed truely

is 533 finds in 24hrs, they did it correctly from 00:00:00 to 23:59:59

one of them is "Skattletaren" he is also one of the CO's behind the Swedish Power Trail i LUND..

Edited September 27, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[+wmpastor]

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day. That's a cache every 90 seconds.

 

C'mon, even Santa Claus doesn't move from house to house that fast without burning up due to friction with atmosphere. What's the secret?

 

I don't believe it either. No one has ever provided substantial proof.

There are videoes out there of people speeding from one cache to the next, 0.1 miles apart, aka power trails. Each hide is the same, & is EZPZ. Driver stays in car, passenger dashes out& signs. About as much fun as working at McBurger at lunchtime.

[+Traditional Bill]

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day. That's a cache every 90 seconds.

 

C'mon, even Santa Claus doesn't move from house to house that fast without burning up due to friction with atmosphere. What's the secret?

 

I don't believe it either. No one has ever provided substantial proof.

There are videoes out there of people speeding from one cache to the next, 0.1 miles apart, aka power trails. Each hide is the same, & is EZPZ. Driver stays in car, passenger dashes out& signs. About as much fun as working at McBurger at lunchtime.

I did a few powertrails (ugh) when I first started out geocaching and was utterly disappointed at how lame and uninteresting they are. Then I realized they are specifically there to boost the count finds of the numbers cachers. To me, power trails are crap, but I suppose the idea of finding a film canister under some rocks every 528 feet in a rather uninteresting area is considered fun to some cachers.

 

There's a powertrail nearby my area which was designed with speed in mind. It's intended to be completed by bringing with you one film canister with a log that has your group's signature on it to start. What you're supposed to do is pick up the container at #1 and drop yours. While driving to the next one which is of course just 528 feet away, whoever's not driving is signing the log sheet in the container picked up from #1. Upon arriving at #2, you pick up the film can you find, and drop the film can from #1. You repeat this process almost 200 times. FUN FUN FUN

 

Hard to believe that these types of PTs exist all over the place. It's disappointing. Everybody needs them some numbers, right?!

[+Mudfrog]

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day. That's a cache every 90 seconds.

 

C'mon, even Santa Claus doesn't move from house to house that fast without burning up due to friction with atmosphere. What's the secret?

 

I don't believe it either. No one has ever provided substantial proof.

There are videoes out there of people speeding from one cache to the next, 0.1 miles apart, aka power trails. Each hide is the same, & is EZPZ. Driver stays in car, passenger dashes out& signs. About as much fun as working at McBurger at lunchtime.

I did a few powertrails (ugh) when I first started out geocaching and was utterly disappointed at how lame and uninteresting they are. Then I realized they are specifically there to boost the count finds of the numbers cachers. To me, power trails are crap, but I suppose the idea of finding a film canister under some rocks every 528 feet in a rather uninteresting area is considered fun to some cachers.

 

There's a powertrail nearby my area which was designed with speed in mind. It's intended to be completed by bringing with you one film canister with a log that has your group's signature on it to start. What you're supposed to do is pick up the container at #1 and drop yours. While driving to the next one which is of course just 528 feet away, whoever's not driving is signing the log sheet in the container picked up from #1. Upon arriving at #2, you pick up the film can you find, and drop the film can from #1. You repeat this process almost 200 times. FUN FUN FUN

 

Hard to believe that these types of PTs exist all over the place. It's disappointing. Everybody needs them some numbers, right?!

 

Power trails usually consist of many containers placed so that a person can grab them quickly and not have to bother with known geocaching.com guidelines. Throwing down and swapping of containers is fine on many of these trails. Leap frogging and other such methods to speed things up for a team are all ok. Not being required, and in fact, asking others to maintain these trails seems to be ok.

 

For just these reasons, i believe that power trails should be listed on their own website. They are not geocaches and are not what geocaching is all about. Listing them elsewhere would solve some of the issues that they cause.

 

Just a couple of things come to mind,,, Not having to worry about how to filter them out when we want to avoid them. Or on the otherhand, being able to search for only power trails. Also, since there would be two different sites, i would see no reason why a real cache couldn't be placed closer than 528 feet from a pt. I'm sure there are other positives...

[+Don_J]

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day. That's a cache every 90 seconds.

 

C'mon, even Santa Claus doesn't move from house to house that fast without burning up due to friction with atmosphere. What's the secret?

 

I don't believe it either. No one has ever provided substantial proof.

There are videoes out there of people speeding from one cache to the next, 0.1 miles apart, aka power trails. Each hide is the same, & is EZPZ. Driver stays in car, passenger dashes out& signs. About as much fun as working at McBurger at lunchtime.

I did a few powertrails (ugh) when I first started out geocaching and was utterly disappointed at how lame and uninteresting they are. Then I realized they are specifically there to boost the count finds of the numbers cachers. To me, power trails are crap, but I suppose the idea of finding a film canister under some rocks every 528 feet in a rather uninteresting area is considered fun to some cachers.

 

There's a powertrail nearby my area which was designed with speed in mind. It's intended to be completed by bringing with you one film canister with a log that has your group's signature on it to start. What you're supposed to do is pick up the container at #1 and drop yours. While driving to the next one which is of course just 528 feet away, whoever's not driving is signing the log sheet in the container picked up from #1. Upon arriving at #2, you pick up the film can you find, and drop the film can from #1. You repeat this process almost 200 times. FUN FUN FUN

 

Hard to believe that these types of PTs exist all over the place. It's disappointing. Everybody needs them some numbers, right?!

 

Power trails usually consist of many containers placed so that a person can grab them quickly and not have to bother with known geocaching.com guidelines. Throwing down and swapping of containers is fine on many of these trails. Leap frogging and other such methods to speed things up for a team are all ok. Not being required, and in fact, asking others to maintain these trails seems to be ok.

 

For just these reasons, i believe that power trails should be listed on their own website. They are not geocaches and are not what geocaching is all about. Listing them elsewhere would solve some of the issues that they cause.

 

Just a couple of things come to mind,,, Not having to worry about how to filter them out when we want to avoid them. Or on the otherhand, being able to search for only power trails. Also, since there would be two different sites, i would see no reason why a real cache couldn't be placed closer than 528 feet from a pt. I'm sure there are other positives...

 

Maybe if your cache is adjacent and not actually in line with the trail, that way the PT cachers will just skip it. Otherwise, your cache is moving right along with all the rest of them. Something happens when these people hit this trails. They become mindless robots and the fact that they just grabbed an ammo can when all of the other caches were film containers doesn't even phase them. They just grab it and move it to the next spot.

 

I talked to a guy that had a regular sized cache on a lonely desert road for a number of years. Another guy came put down 50 soda preforms and made it as clear as he could on each and every cache page that the caches were to be left in place and not to be moved. This other guy's cache is in the middle of all this and he starts getting logs questioning why he has a soda preform marked as a regular. So he drives out there and sure enough, there's a soda preform in his spot. He starts checking up the trail and finds his cache about ten spots up. It's obvious that people are totally disregarding the other cache owner's request to not move his caches. So he goes to the beginning to look and see what they are starting with. Sure enough, film cans in the first ten spots. So presumably, after a total of 50 people ignore the request to not move the caches, the entire trail will transform from 50 waterproof preforms to 50 leaky film containers.

[+niraD]

I only log the ones I have actually touched.

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with logging caches that I haven't touched. Sometimes, I was even the first person to spot it, but we were playing huckle buckle beanstalk style, and the last person in the group to spot it was the one who retrieved it, signed everyone's names, and replaced it. (I'm a big believer in having the person who retrieved it also be the person who replaces it, to minimize cache migration.)

 

[some appropriate name here] - As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over, and only that one person logs the find.

How about "Sudden Death" (taking the term from the sporting context). I.e. as soon as the first person "scores", the game is over. The others have lost and can't log the find.

I like that. So now we have three points on the continuum:

 

Sudden Death - As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over. That person "wins" and logs a find, and the others "lose" and cannot log a find.

 

Three Musketeers – As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over. All members of the group log a find.

 

Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk – When members of the group find the cache, they walk elsewhere (to avoid giving away its location) and announce that they have found it by calling out "huckle-buckle-beanstalk”, "found it", or whatever phrase the group uses. The hunt continues until everyone in the group has either spotted the cache or given up. All members of the group log a find.

 

I've never seen it played this way myself.

Yeah, I've never played that way either. But 4thnoel apparently plays that way. And I've seen a few posts in the forums from newbies who apparently assume that once someone in the group has found it, no one else in the group can truly "find" it. So maybe there are others who play this way too.

[+redants]

Driver drops jumpers at different caches, then each person on the team takes credit for every find.

There are plenty of people who believe that's not geocaching.

I wouldn't say that's not geocaching. Cheating though - I'll take that

I cache with my dad and some park-n-grabs I get out and find without him. The car's only less than 20 metres away, so that isn't cheating

[+Don_J]

I only log the ones I have actually touched.

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with logging caches that I haven't touched. Sometimes, I was even the first person to spot it, but we were playing huckle buckle beanstalk style, and the last person in the group to spot it was the one who retrieved it, signed everyone's names, and replaced it. (I'm a big believer in having the person who retrieved it also be the person who replaces it, to minimize cache migration.)

 

[some appropriate name here] - As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over, and only that one person logs the find.

How about "Sudden Death" (taking the term from the sporting context). I.e. as soon as the first person "scores", the game is over. The others have lost and can't log the find.

I like that. So now we have three points on the continuum:

 

Sudden Death - As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over. That person "wins" and logs a find, and the others "lose" and cannot log a find.

 

Three Musketeers – As soon as one person in the group finds the cache, the hunt is over. All members of the group log a find.

 

Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk – When members of the group find the cache, they walk elsewhere (to avoid giving away its location) and announce that they have found it by calling out "huckle-buckle-beanstalk”, "found it", or whatever phrase the group uses. The hunt continues until everyone in the group has either spotted the cache or given up. All members of the group log a find.

 

I've never seen it played this way myself.

Yeah, I've never played that way either. But 4thnoel apparently plays that way. And I've seen a few posts in the forums from newbies who apparently assume that once someone in the group has found it, no one else in the group can truly "find" it. So maybe there are others who play this way too.

 

Having hiked for years with several "A" types that will race ahead to get a head start in looking, my find count would be substantially lower if I played "Sudden Death". In fact, I'm 5'7" and the three guys that I normally hike with are 6'6", so by the natural order of things, they are at GZ before me.

[+Dogmeat*]

So hold on.

 

If five people want to get together, spend time together, and make it a goal to get a certain amount of geocaches on a power trail in one day and share each other's company, that's cheating?

 

I haven't done it, and if I were to travel to a place like the ET Highway where there is this huge open desert.. I would definitely take part in it. I'm from a small Island off of Nova Scotia, Canada. I've not seen a desert before. One main point of geocaching is to take a geocacher somewhere they may not find otherwise, which is what I've come to love about geocaching. It takes me to places I'd never know about. I'll attach a picture showing a place I found just two days ago that's about 15 minutes away from my home, yet I only discovered it the other day because of a guard rail cache just about 100 meters away from it.

 

Back to what I was saying, though. Driving along a highway in a desert collecting containers with a personal goal and good company sounds like a great time to me. If that's what cheating is in this game, then I will gladly cheat. It's not about the numbers. It's about the journey this power trail would take me on and the sights I would then see because of it. I love clever hides, but what I love more is a hide that will take me to places I've never seen whether it be a micro or a massive box.

 

[+briansnat]

Driving along a highway in a desert collecting containers with a personal goal and good company sounds like a great time to me. If that's what cheating is in this game, then I will gladly cheat. It's not about the numbers. It's about the journey this power trail would take me on and the sights I would then see because of it

 

Don't kid yourself. If there was a cache on the exact same route every two miles instead of every 528 some feet, you'd still have the same journey, the same good company and you might even have a minute or two to actually look up and enjoy the scenery. However people wouldn't come from around the world to enjoy all of that. It certainly is about the numbers.

[+Dogmeat*]

Whether it's every two miles or every 528 feet, it's still a journey and a personal goal I could achieve. Also, I'd assume the vehicle I'm driving would have windows. I'm not above standing there for longer than 90 seconds looking at the scenery as well. People travel all over the world just to look at things. I don't see why it would be any different here. Thousands of non geocachers travel that highway yearly.

[+Sagefox]

So hold on.

 

If five people want to get together, spend time together, and make it a goal to get a certain amount of geocaches on a power trail in one day and share each other's company, that's cheating?

 

If the five are all visiting the same cache at the same time even if most are in the car 20' away then, no, that's not cheating.

 

The "5" was referring to is a hypothetical situation where five people visit five different caches at the same time and all log a find even though four did not visit it. That would allow someone to claim five finds on their individual accounts for each one they found. A majority of folks will certainly agree that is cheating.

 

Keep in mind that the above example is not the same thing as family teams where members sometimes or even often find caches separately and then log them to their team account rather than to individual accounts. These team accounts are a record of the team accomplishment. At least one member of the team visited each cache logged.

[+Sagefox]

It's about the journey this power trail would take me on and the sights I would then see because of it.

 

Exactly!!! We've visited the Mojave desert almost yearly since 1989. If you haven't been there yet I think you will really like the experience. That it is a power trail that gets you down there then I'm all for it and you are correct in thinking that the scenery will dominate your experience even if you are focused on cache finding. The desert is just too big to let you ignore it.

 

We've driven by several of the Mojave desert power trails but have yet to actually do them. I think it would be fun. I've been doing power trails by bike and would love to do that along part of The National Trails Highway.

[+uxorious]

It's not about the numbers. It's about the journey this power trail would take me on and the sights I would then see because of it

 

If you are getting a cache every 90 sec. for hours and hours, then it certainly is about the numbers. If you did the same power trail, getting a cache every 5, or 10 min., stopping now and then for a soda or snack, it would be about the journey.

 

You wouldn't get nearly the numbers, but should I ever be near a power trail, that would be my way of doing it. I would not even try to get them all.

[+niraD]

If you did the same power trail, getting a cache every 5, or 10 min., stopping now and then for a soda or snack, it would be about the journey.

I wonder how many of the ET Highway caches are non-micros. 0001-E.T. is a regular LBH. 2000-E.T. is a regular traditional. Throw in a few other small or regular caches along the way (and maybe a few micros that predate the numbers run trail), and it might be a nice journey through the desert.

[jholly]

If you did the same power trail, getting a cache every 5, or 10 min., stopping now and then for a soda or snack, it would be about the journey.

I wonder how many of the ET Highway caches are non-micros. 0001-E.T. is a regular LBH. 2000-E.T. is a regular traditional. Throw in a few other small or regular caches along the way (and maybe a few micros that predate the numbers run trail), and it might be a nice journey through the desert.

There are a number of caches along the ET highway that are not part of the trail, most are, or at least were, small and above.

[+Dogmeat*]

I was just using the ET highway as an example. It wouldn't be about the numbers unless I went there specifically to get the numbers. If I'm there to see the desert, or even to see all the places I've read about along that Desert since I was 16 and I decide to spend the whole day collecting caches along a power trail as well, it's not necessarily about the numbers. I'd even go as far to say that it'd be something that would force the parties I'm with to actually communicate for more than a couple hours, as we all know people my age (23) have trouble doing these days because they're glued to their cell phones and making sure twitter knows what they ate.

[+Glenn]

This is my version of leapfrogging: The lead car keeps finding the next cache until passed by one of the trailing cars. The trailing cars skip all caches until they pass the leading car. This format allows the free exchange of passengers amongst cars and no advance distribution of supplies amongst the cars. Participants can visibly see the progress made towards finishing the power trail and can more accurately gauge completion times. The dynamic that develops between the vehicles' participants enhances the experience. However, leapfrogging is unwieldy once the number of vehicles increases to four, vehicles go off on side roads for unannounced "one-offs", or caches are on varying sides of the road (for this latter one, you can start at either end and the teams only do caches on the right side of the road--but that's only if it's impractical to cross the road).

 

I heard about what you mentioned, even experimented with it on a small sub-hundred run. However, from experience, I can definitely say the leapfrogging I'm familiar with is the most enjoyable option I've found. You get a little fun competition between the vehicles going, with the people in the lead car trying to do as many caches as possible before being passed by a trailing car. There's a lot to be said for this method on long power trails.

 

Just like anything, you choose the right tool or tactic to accomplish the job in the time allowed. If you have enough time to keep the vehicles together and stop for each cache, that's ideal and recommended.

 

A lot to be said? "Cheating" is only one word.

 

There's a cache on my way to work that I've been meaning to stop for. The other day, I saw one of my friends there looking for it. I was late so I couldn't stop, but he found it and logged it. Should I just declare "Power trail Rules", and log it because I drove by while someone else was finding it?

 

The whole thing sounds kind of silly, doesn't it.

 

I'm on the Earth. You're on the Earth. Let's claim power trail rules and LOG ALL THE CACHES!!!

 

Seriously tho, you bring up a good point about vicinity. Where is the line drawn and why?

[jholly]

I'd even go as far to say that it'd be something that would force the parties I'm with to actually communicate for more than a couple hours, as we all know people my age (23) have trouble doing these days because they're glued to their cell phones and making sure twitter knows what they ate.

 

Rest assured that on the ET and Route 66 nobody is glued to their cell phones, unless they like looking at the message that says "Searching for System". This is true for most desert caching, and in fact a lot of the forest and on the two lane roads I've done caching on. I've found lots of white space on the Verizon map.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was just using the ET highway as an example. It wouldn't be about the numbers unless I went there specifically to get the numbers. If I'm there to see the desert, or even to see all the places I've read about along that Desert since I was 16 and I decide to spend the whole day collecting caches along a power trail as well, it's not necessarily about the numbers. I'd even go as far to say that it'd be something that would force the parties I'm with to actually communicate for more than a couple hours, as we all know people my age (23) have trouble doing these days because they're glued to their cell phones and making sure twitter knows what they ate.

 

It seems to me that you'd have a lot more time to communicate if, instead doing a power trail, you spent the day finding a dozen or two caches. If you choose to do a power trail, and try to find as many caches as possible rather than just going out into the same area and finding a bunch of random caches how can it be anything *but* doing it for the numbers?

 

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

It's not about the numbers. It's about the journey this power trail would take me on and the sights I would then see because of it

 

If you are getting a cache every 90 sec. for hours and hours, then it certainly is about the numbers. If you did the same power trail, getting a cache every 5, or 10 min., stopping now and then for a soda or snack, it would be about the journey.

 

You wouldn't get nearly the numbers, but should I ever be near a power trail, that would be my way of doing it. I would not even try to get them all.

 

To me, it doesn't matter if it's about the numbers or not. Big smiley count itself doesn't affect me.

 

The problem comes in when number's people are hurridly trying to find caches. They sometimes can't find them within 5 seconds, so they throwdown. They sometimes move containers. They sometimes don't close containers up the way they should. They sometimes don't hide caches back the way they should. All of this may be fine when doing a power trail but it does cause problems when they are done on geocaches.

 

This is another one of the reasons why i'd like to see power trails listed on their own website.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Mudfrog

[+rjb43nh]

"The problem comes in when number's people are hurridly trying to find caches. They sometimes can't find them within 5 seconds, so they throwdown. They sometimes move containers. They sometimes don't close containers up the way they should. They sometimes don't hide caches back the way they should.....

Sounds like what happens to a lot of caches no matter where they are hidden.

[+Sagefox]

"The problem comes in when number's people are hurridly trying to find caches. They sometimes can't find them within 5 seconds, so they throwdown. They sometimes move containers. They sometimes don't close containers up the way they should. They sometimes don't hide caches back the way they should.....

Sounds like what happens to a lot of caches no matter where they are hidden.

Yes, and I recall having those same complaints prior to power trails including back in the early years.

 

I know throwdowns have been discussed here for ages but I don't recall coming across more than a few during our entire time caching with the exception of some on a power trail earlier this year. Outside of power trails the idea may carry more weight than the reality. I hope so anyway.

[jholly]

"The problem comes in when number's people are hurridly trying to find caches. They sometimes can't find them within 5 seconds, so they throwdown. They sometimes move containers. They sometimes don't close containers up the way they should. They sometimes don't hide caches back the way they should.....

Sounds like what happens to a lot of caches no matter where they are hidden.

Yes, and I recall having those same complaints prior to power trails including back in the early years.

 

I know throwdowns have been discussed here for ages but I don't recall coming across more than a few during our entire time caching with the exception of some on a power trail earlier this year. Outside of power trails the idea may carry more weight than the reality. I hope so anyway.

I agree with Team Sagefox on the throwdowns. I rarely find them. But it does make for good sound bites from the power trail haters. And how do you know that film can on a power trail is a throw down?

[+Mudfrog]

"The problem comes in when number's people are hurridly trying to find caches. They sometimes can't find them within 5 seconds, so they throwdown. They sometimes move containers. They sometimes don't close containers up the way they should. They sometimes don't hide caches back the way they should.....

Sounds like what happens to a lot of caches no matter where they are hidden.

Yes, and I recall having those same complaints prior to power trails including back in the early years.

 

I know throwdowns have been discussed here for ages but I don't recall coming across more than a few during our entire time caching with the exception of some on a power trail earlier this year. Outside of power trails the idea may carry more weight than the reality. I hope so anyway.

 

The complaints before PTs were fewer. I also tend to believe that most throwdowns were placed more to help cache owners back then. I firmly believe that many of today's throwdowns are done by cachers who want numbers and who don't want to mess up a cache run that they may be on. If they go for a power trail of a hundred caches, then they want all of that hundred to show in their stats as found. This is especially true if the power trail is in an area that they know they probably won't ever get back to. It would just hurt too much not to have that "perfect score", so they make sure they get it no matter what.

 

I have no doubt this mentality sometimes carries over to geocaches that these cachers can't find.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I keep seeing folks that have found over 960 caches in a single day. That's a cache every 90 seconds.

 

C'mon, even Santa Claus doesn't move from house to house that fast without burning up due to friction with atmosphere. What's the secret?

 

I don't believe it either. No one has ever provided substantial proof.

There are videoes out there of people speeding from one cache to the next, 0.1 miles apart, aka power trails. Each hide is the same, & is EZPZ. Driver stays in car, passenger dashes out& signs. About as much fun as working at McBurger at lunchtime.

I did a few powertrails (ugh) when I first started out geocaching and was utterly disappointed at how lame and uninteresting they are. Then I realized they are specifically there to boost the count finds of the numbers cachers. To me, power trails are crap, but I suppose the idea of finding a film canister under some rocks every 528 feet in a rather uninteresting area is considered fun to some cachers.

 

There's a powertrail nearby my area which was designed with speed in mind. It's intended to be completed by bringing with you one film canister with a log that has your group's signature on it to start. What you're supposed to do is pick up the container at #1 and drop yours. While driving to the next one which is of course just 528 feet away, whoever's not driving is signing the log sheet in the container picked up from #1. Upon arriving at #2, you pick up the film can you find, and drop the film can from #1. You repeat this process almost 200 times. FUN FUN FUN

 

Hard to believe that these types of PTs exist all over the place. It's disappointing. Everybody needs them some numbers, right?!

I have done a few power trails in my area but not all the hides where the same, but several of the hides where illegal but that is another subject

[+NYPaddleCacher]

"The problem comes in when number's people are hurridly trying to find caches. They sometimes can't find them within 5 seconds, so they throwdown. They sometimes move containers. They sometimes don't close containers up the way they should. They sometimes don't hide caches back the way they should.....

Sounds like what happens to a lot of caches no matter where they are hidden.

 

The difference, however, is that power trails, and the goal to find as many caches in as short of time as possible provides an incentive to cut corners. Non power trail caches might occasionally see the same kind of throwdown behavior, leap frogging, and other questionable behaviors, but the fact that power trails have turned geocaching into a race provides the incentive for reducing the time to find, replace, and get to the next cache as soon as possible.