How the heck do you find a cache every 90 seconds

[+jellis]

When I started geocaching about 13 years ago...

 

...I like to hike, see the sights, have a good hunt for a well-hidden cache, enjoy the cache placement, sit for a bit and then move on.

 

Hey, Ron Streeter is back in the game! Ron's has some great caches in Northern California and many of our favorite caches are Streeter caches from back in our California days. We have a photo me holding one of his very clever containers on our Profile page. (It should not be a spoiler because it doesn't identify the cache, is a small photo and it is not our home territory.)

So far I've found about 20 of his.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

OR Armchair Cacher?

While it's certainly possible that someone with 960 finds in a single day did it from their armchair, I think the point that many people are making is that it's also certainly possible to rack up those kinds of numbers while visiting every cache along certain power trails.

 

The counter point that many others are making is that visiting is a term that is being applied very loosely to "number runs" due to non-standard caching methods. Practices like signing for a group of people and including members of the group who are not physically present at the cache site and removing a log from one cache and placing it in another (or removing the entire cache and swapping it with another).

 

RangerDoc is either bumping the thread or making comment about how some of the practices that some number runners employ is not much different than armchair caching.

 

+1

 

It's not possible for one person to find a cache every 90 seconds and continue at that pace until they find 960 legitimate (standard caching method) finds in a single day.

 

I know people who have done it so I know it's possible. Just because it's not possible for you it doesn't mean it's not possible.

 

I agree......I took a whack at Route 66 a couple of years ago. I averaged less than 90 sec for 303 caches and it was 117 in the shade ( no shade on 66 ) and I was 66 years old....had I wanted, I might have got 4 or 5 hundred. A young man in good condition with cool weather would have no problem grabbing 960 IMO.

[+thebruce0]

I just had the privilege of doing the ET trail with 3 other friends. So a few points to make in this discussion...

 

"the numbers game"

It's only "about the numbers" insofar as it is about completing a goal that requires finding numerous caches. What I mean is, I don't care that my "smiley count" increases. What I care about is that I'm there to do the ET trail, and attempt to complete it, however fast I can. There are 2400 caches (now). So, it's only "about the numbers" in that my goal is to find all 2400 as fast as possible.

I suppose a bigger question would be: Would you still do the power trail if the entire series was one single multi-stage cache? IMO, it would be a completely different type of experience, but if - by the reputation the ET Trail has - the experience of doing that single 2400+ waypoint multi was just as awesome and memorable, then I most certainly would! In the end, the only thing to 'brag' about is completing your personal goal - not competing and "winning".

 

setting a new record

Records that many can compete for or just strive for require a standard set of rules.

You know what compose the rules for a geocache find? Practically nothing; really, it's up to the CO. Everything else is subjective nitpicking, pride, and quarreling between players. There are no rules. The only "standard", the only definition by which one can objectively compare 'finds in a day' to someone else - is the number of find logs posted online dated the same date. That's all the number means. When you start to get upset because you're comparing your highest log-post count to someone else's higher log post count, what are you actually arguing about?

It's precisely this reason that the challenge cache I published for finding caches in a day sets no rules, except for an arbitrary 'leaderboard' I update in the listing. You want to log the challenge itself found? Your stats just need to show 100+ finds in a day. That's all I can verify, and I have no way of defining a "legitimate find". But if you want recognition in the leaderboard, then follow the guidelines, and describe any other details about how you did it, because:

1) it gives other people ideas and strategies

2) it helps other people not to feel "beaten" just because someone else decided to leapfrog for a higher number

3) the leaderboard rules provide an optional standard guideline and level playing field by which to complete the challenge

4) it's interesting and fun!

 

Number of 'finds' in a day, really, means nothing. If you want to feel validated, then find other people with high number counts who attained them using the same strategy you employed -- then you actually have some standard by which to compare.

 

There's no pride to be had in just a high number.

How did you achieve that number? That's what's most interesting and relevant.

 

the legitimate find

Man, such a subjective thing.

Ok, because there's no way for a find really to be validated (was someone part of a group name? a partner account? is it dated or not? did they touch it? see it? help others to find it? yadda yadda) - there is no legitimate find, ultimately. Groundspeak simply lets the CO decide, to a reasonable degree (that is, a mark on the logsheet the finder claims represents their visit) - just use common sense.

 

My personal guideline is that I won't log it found if I didn't have any role in finding the cache (ie it wouldn't have been found that way if I wasn't a part of the 'team'), or wasn't there to see how it was hidden. I don't consider a leap-frog find a valid find - for me.

 

The ET Trail

 

When we did the power trail, in one vehicle, whether running or stamping (or driving, which I didn't do myself at all), every one of us at the very least saw where each container was hidden; we stopped at each one, and at least one of us touched the container -- the exception being, per the CO disclaimer, if a container was missing we placed a fresh one, IF its intended location was obvious (thankfully they all were).

 

We completed the entire 2400 cache series, plus extras along the way, in 3 days. Our highest count was 900 finds, though we feel would could have easily crossed 1000 if we had extra gas or started earlier or went later. But our goal was simply to complete the series.

I kept track of the trail stretches, our times and find rates so we could budget our time wisely. In my log at 0001-ET (not copypasta'd to every single cache) I posted those details and our strategy, for the sake of anyone else who might find the strategy and its results of use.

 

the debate

 

I think the biggest problem is really that the only number which we can "objectively" compare is the smiley count in our profile. But there is no definition of what actually comprises that count, except the existence of find logs.

900 is now my best find log count in one day. Yay. Can I brag about that when someone says they found 100 caches themselves alone on a powertrail? Of course not! It's a completely different strategy and experience than that which produced 900.

 

My other 100+ personal records (non-Nevada) are 175, 130, 120, and 103. Each different strategies, different people, different caches, whether trails on foot or bike or just driving around town, and different experiences entirely! I can't even necessarily compare those numbers to each other. What if one powertrail is comprised of 5 difficulty caches, and one is all 1's? Those daily numbers would be drastically different!

 

TL;DR:

Comparing your strict one-day find count to someone else's is begging for a blow to your pride, or opening the door for angry competitive behaviour in this enjoyable, flexible pastime. There are far too many factors that can determine what constitutes a single "find", and absolutely no standard by which to compare a full day count of these "find" concepts. Save yourself the angst, and just keep it based on personal goals - it's not about besting someone else's count, unless you're both in it to compete with each other, and both compete using the same guidelines.

 

Otherwise, just have fun and go geocaching however you personally enjoy it, using common sense, and respecting each and every cache owner's decision of what constitutes a "find" on their geocache(s).

Edited March 12, 2014 by thebruce0

[+briansnat]

When I started geocaching about 13 years ago I placed the 644th cache in the world. It's Blue Top in Round Valley in Central California.

 

I doubt the cachers then could have found all 644 caches in the world at a 90 second apart rate.

 

Nope, this 1,000 caches a day thing isn't geocaching in my book, but what do I know. I like to hike, see the sights, have a good hunt for a well-hidden cache, enjoy the cache placement, sit for a bit and then move on.

 

I guess that's why I also choose not to find every parking lot light pole cache in existence either.

 

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

[+thebruce0]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

Edited March 13, 2014 by thebruce0

[jholly]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

[+niraD]

Considering the golf analogy, there are many variations to the game, including beautiful courses like Pebble Beach, historic courses like St Andrews, convenient courses like your local municipal course, and quick courses like a 9-hole par-3 course. There are places where you can hit ball after ball after ball (whether you're practicing your putting, your driving, or something else). There are various ways for groups to play against each other or as teams. Players can count strokes, or they can count holes won, or they can count holes where they beat par, or whatever else.

 

But what does it mean to "play a round of golf"? Some of the above variations would be considered "playing a round of golf". Others would be considered something else (e.g., hitting a bucket of balls at the driving range). And there may even be disagreements over what constitutes "playing a round of golf" (e.g., speed golf, or a scramble, or a 9-hole course, or only half of an 18-hole course).

 

Yeah, it might be a pretty good analogy after all...

[+Ma & Pa]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

 

agreeed. nice one and keeping it civil too.

 

.

 

.

[+Sagefox]

From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

I'm not much of a power trail cacher. I've done several on bike (about 150 caches) and a couple driving trails (about 45 caches). And, in fact, we are planning to drive the ET highway during our spring desert trip but not do the caches if you can imagine that! Our goal is to spend the night at the now famous town of Rachel, have breakfast at the cafe and meet any power cachers that might happen by.

 

That said, I disagree strongly with the quoted statement. What it misses is the fact that folks are having a ball doing that type of caching. They are finding containers and signing logs - they are geocaching.

 

The people I talk to who play golf with baseball bats and beach balls all have big scowls on their faces. When I suggest that they consider doing power trail caching instead some of them say they might actually try it instead.

[+Don_J]

From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

I'm not much of a power trail cacher. I've done several on bike (about 150 caches) and a couple driving trails (about 45 caches). And, in fact, we are planning to drive the ET highway during our spring desert trip but not do the caches if you can imagine that! Our goal is to spend the night at the now famous town of Rachel, have breakfast at the cafe and meet any power cachers that might happen by.

 

That said, I disagree strongly with the quoted statement. What it misses is the fact that folks are having a ball doing that type of caching. They are finding containers and signing logs - they are geocaching.

 

The people I talk to who play golf with baseball bats and beach balls all have big scowls on their faces. When I suggest that they consider doing power trail caching instead some of them say they might actually try it instead.

 

Why not drive the ET Hwy and find all of the old ammo cans that predate the power trail?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

 

I see what you did there, but I disagree. Brian stated his opinion about a definition of geocaching and that, in his opinion, these highway PT's don't meet that definition. The edit you made suggests that the opinion is solely based on an emotional response to a type of geocaching. It's like all the threads here where people will be critical of an aspect of geocaching (e.g power trails) and specifically describe issues which exemplify how that aspect is producing a negative impact on the game overall. Rather than address these issue directly, the arguements are met with "don't listen to the pt haters", as if the only reason that someone might be critical of power trails is because they "hate" them.

 

It's a fallacious argument, a type of red herring called "appeal to emotion" where an argument is made through the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

[+nittany dave]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

 

I see what you did there, but I disagree. Brian stated his opinion about a definition of geocaching and that, in his opinion, these highway PT's don't meet that definition. The edit you made suggests that the opinion is solely based on an emotional response to a type of geocaching. It's like all the threads here where people will be critical of an aspect of geocaching (e.g power trails) and specifically describe issues which exemplify how that aspect is producing a negative impact on the game overall. Rather than address these issue directly, the arguements are met with "don't listen to the pt haters", as if the only reason that someone might be critical of power trails is because they "hate" them.

 

It's a fallacious argument, a type of red herring called "appeal to emotion" where an argument is made through the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion. I don't know if Brian's comment was based on an emotional response or not but it seems fairly obvious that he would not enjoy power trail geocaching. But it is still geocaching enjoyed by some.

[+thebruce0]

Why not drive the ET Hwy and find all of the old ammo cans that predate the power trail?

I will very much second that recommendation! There are quite a number of actually very good (new and old) caches along the ET highway and various side roads that aren't a part of the series. We stopped to grab many of these during our geocaching excursion, and they were quite rewarding!

 

For example, I'd recommend GC173, GCF9, and *ahem* GC4ZCYK Rachel was a nice little town; Make sure to do Quark's if you stay at the Little Ale'inn (and discover all those TB's!), and do the Wherigo and Earthcache There too. Also if you pass by the ET highway sign on your way in (next to GC2CTAV), see if you can find the (tiny) "KW Crew" stamp (and then grab the other cache right there as well .

And certainly don't pass by thea area 51 store (at GC3P78W) by 0001. Fun little place to check out, if you're there when it's open. And take a marker if you want to sign the back wall of the store too; all their markers were worn flat and dud when we visited =/

 

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

Fix that for ya

 

I see what you did there, but I disagree. Brian stated his opinion about a definition of geocaching and that, in his opinion, these highway PT's don't meet that definition. The edit you made suggests that the opinion is solely based on an emotional response to a type of geocaching. It's like all the threads here where people will be critical of an aspect of geocaching (e.g power trails) and specifically describe issues which exemplify how that aspect is producing a negative impact on the game overall. Rather than address these issue directly, the arguements are met with "don't listen to the pt haters", as if the only reason that someone might be critical of power trails is because they "hate" them.

 

It's a fallacious argument, a type of red herring called "appeal to emotion" where an argument is made through the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

 

What nittany dave said (right above this reply).

Edited March 14, 2014 by thebruce0

[+NeverSummer]

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?

Drive bys.

[+Sagefox]

For example, I'd recommend GC173, GCF9, and *ahem* GC4ZCYK Rachel was a nice little town; Make sure to do Quark's if you stay at the Little Ale'inn (and discover all those TB's!), and do the Wherigo and Earthcache There too. Also if you pass by the ET highway sign on your way in (next to GC2CTAV), see if you can find the (tiny) "KW Crew" stamp (and then grab the other cache right there as well .

 

And certainly don't pass by thea area 51 store (at GC3P78W) by 0001. Fun little place to check out, if you're there when it's open. And take a marker if you want to sign the back wall of the store too; all their markers were worn flat and dud when we visited =/Fix that for ya

 

Thanks - I appreciate these tips. I will check them out and we will visit some.

 

The purpose of our trip is desert camping in the SAGEFOX van along with two other couples, something we've been doing for the past 25 years. Selective geocaching has been a nice addition.

 

I am not opposed to the PT caches and actually would love to do a power run someday but that is not the way my wife and I cache when together. Just to be different we might walk the ETpt for 10 or 20 caches.

[+Don_J]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

 

I see what you did there, but I disagree. Brian stated his opinion about a definition of geocaching and that, in his opinion, these highway PT's don't meet that definition. The edit you made suggests that the opinion is solely based on an emotional response to a type of geocaching. It's like all the threads here where people will be critical of an aspect of geocaching (e.g power trails) and specifically describe issues which exemplify how that aspect is producing a negative impact on the game overall. Rather than address these issue directly, the arguements are met with "don't listen to the pt haters", as if the only reason that someone might be critical of power trails is because they "hate" them.

 

It's a fallacious argument, a type of red herring called "appeal to emotion" where an argument is made through the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion. I don't know if Brian's comment was based on an emotional response or not but it seems fairly obvious that he would not enjoy power trail geocaching. But it is still geocaching enjoyed by some.

 

How about this? If someone has a thought or opinion, they post it instead of quoting someone elses comment and editing their words, which then gets quoted again and again, confusing future readers. I am fairly confident that Brian wrote exactly what he meant to write. This whole internet forum phenomenon of, "Fixed it for you", should be outlawed.

[+niraD]

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion.

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

[+Yuma4]

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion.

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

 

+1

[+Ambrosia]

Goodness, in twelve years of caching, I STILL haven't reached 2400 caches. It blows my mind that someone can do that in just a few days.

[+K13]

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion.

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

 

Don't forget, logging a throwdown as a find, instead of a DNF with a 'fixed your cache for the next finder' log.

[Mr.Yuck]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

 

I see what you did there, but I disagree. Brian stated his opinion about a definition of geocaching and that, in his opinion, these highway PT's don't meet that definition. The edit you made suggests that the opinion is solely based on an emotional response to a type of geocaching. It's like all the threads here where people will be critical of an aspect of geocaching (e.g power trails) and specifically describe issues which exemplify how that aspect is producing a negative impact on the game overall. Rather than address these issue directly, the arguements are met with "don't listen to the pt haters", as if the only reason that someone might be critical of power trails is because they "hate" them.

 

It's a fallacious argument, a type of red herring called "appeal to emotion" where an argument is made through the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion. I don't know if Brian's comment was based on an emotional response or not but it seems fairly obvious that he would not enjoy power trail geocaching. But it is still geocaching enjoyed by some.

 

How about this? If someone has a thought or opinion, they post it instead of quoting someone elses comment and editing their words, which then gets quoted again and again, confusing future readers. I am fairly confident that Brian wrote exactly what he meant to write. This whole internet forum phenomenon of, "Fixed it for you", should be outlawed.

 

Blame Usenet and about 1996 or so.

[+niraD]

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

Don't forget, logging a throwdown as a find, instead of a DNF with a 'fixed your cache for the next finder' log.

Yeah, throwdowns are another old "that's not geocaching" practice that numbers run trails amplify. Except that they won't even get a "fixed your cache" log on a numbers run trail. They'll just get the same copy-paste log as all the other caches on the trail.

[vagabond]

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion.

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

 

+1

 

+2

[+thebruce0]

How about this? If someone has a thought or opinion, they post it instead of quoting someone elses comment and editing their words, which then gets quoted again and again, confusing future readers. I am fairly confident that Brian wrote exactly what he meant to write. This whole internet forum phenomenon of, "Fixed it for you", should be outlawed.

I too am also sure Brian said exactly what he meant.

What I did was demonstrate how it's precisely related to the point we were just discussing; clearly, and disclaimed, so that when and if it's quoted properly it's not presumed incorrectly to be his initial statement, unless of course someone purposefully misrepresents him, which I did not do. And by the way, anyone can intentionally misrepresent anyone at any time in a forum by stealthily altering a quote.

Dude, there any many things, many cliches, many tactics, many forms of snark on the internet used to make a point. Get used to it, man. I can stand them myself, but to a point. That is, as long as they make a point and aren't used just to troll. But when a discussion encroaches on decrying discussion tactics, the discussion itself has run its course.

 

Brian's comment as posted was an objective statement that implied a definition of geocaching which did not include that which he obviously dislikes. That is incorrect. Those who do like it, do consider it geocaching. Who then is wrong? And who has the right to say that? Groundspeak allows it. It's geocaching. It's just not his preferred style. That was the point of my snarky correction. But I'm pretty sure all that was obvious by my reply in the first place...

 

The rest of my post was providing and recommending specific geocaches that most anyone would consider relevant to traditional "geocaching", and implying how they were all part and parcel of the ET experience, yet that they could be enjoyed without doing the powertrail element.

 

 

Geocaching is many things to many different people. One shouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that one's preferred method of enjoying the pastime is the only "true" geocaching, when all of it falls under the umbrella of what Groundspeak has deemed acceptable forms of geocaching via their site. We don't have to like every form it takes that every person may enjoy. But no one's being forced to play those ways. Play the way you want to play, and encourage others to play that way so it can perpetuate. Simple.

Edited March 15, 2014 by thebruce0

[+briansnat]

I've never done a power trail but I've watched a number of Youtube videos of people doing them. From what I've seen these highway PTs have as much to do with what I enjoy about geocaching as hitting a beach ball with a baseball bat has to do with golf.

 

Fix that for ya

 

I see what you did there, but I disagree. Brian stated his opinion about a definition of geocaching and that, in his opinion, these highway PT's don't meet that definition. The edit you made suggests that the opinion is solely based on an emotional response to a type of geocaching. It's like all the threads here where people will be critical of an aspect of geocaching (e.g power trails) and specifically describe issues which exemplify how that aspect is producing a negative impact on the game overall. Rather than address these issue directly, the arguements are met with "don't listen to the pt haters", as if the only reason that someone might be critical of power trails is because they "hate" them.

 

It's a fallacious argument, a type of red herring called "appeal to emotion" where an argument is made through the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

 

I think my definition of geocaching is fairly widely accepted by the community. Participants use a GPS to navigate to a cache location, find the cache, sign that cache's log and return the cache to it's hiding place. Without majority of those elements I seriously don't see what it has in common with geocaching. In most of the power trail videos I've watched I don't see any of those elements, so I stand by my original statement.

 

Once they picked up a soccer ball and ran with it, the new game was great fun but it was no longer soccer.

Edited March 16, 2014 by briansnat

[jholly]

 

I think my definition of geocaching is fairly widely accepted by the community. Participants use a GPS to navigate to a cache location, find the cache, sign that cache's log and return the cache to it's hiding place. Without majority of those elements I seriously don't see what it has in common with geocaching.

By your definition power trail caching involves the majority of those elements so it must be geocaching. End of discussion.

[+briansnat]

 

I think my definition of geocaching is fairly widely accepted by the community. Participants use a GPS to navigate to a cache location, find the cache, sign that cache's log and return the cache to it's hiding place. Without majority of those elements I seriously don't see what it has in common with geocaching.

By your definition power trail caching involves the majority of those elements so it must be geocaching. End of discussion.

 

In most of the videos that I saw, GPS use was not apparent. The "geocachers" appeared to use the vehicle's odometer and sight to determine the cache location. GPS use? Little or none. As for finding the cache and replacing it, I noticed they usually bring their own cache with them and re-hid that, taking the original cache with them. Find cache and return it to it's original location? Nope. Sign the cache's log? Once it's removed you aren't signing that cache's log, you're signing the log for another cache so a no there too. And actually finding a geocache isn't even a requirement. If you can't find it, you are to leave one of extra containers provided at the beginning of the PT and log a "find". Sorry, no geocaching here.

Edited March 16, 2014 by briansnat

[+wimseyguy]

He's right, none of us have ever spotted the hiding spot from 100' away because there was an unusual pile of sticks or rocks on top of it. Ever.

Edited March 16, 2014 by wimseyguy

[+Ma & Pa]

We had another snow storm the other day so cachers could find the geotrails crossing the snowbanks from the road. This has gone on all this winter. We hid a 41 cache series a month ago and i am certain many did not need a gps

[+unicornivi]

I still cant understand how people can get even just 20 or more in a day. I can understand if they're easy and right next to each other on a trail, but other than that it just doesn't seem plausible. I'm still a rookie, though, and usually can spend all day on 10 or less heh .__.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I still cant understand how people can get even just 20 or more in a day. I can understand if they're easy and right next to each other on a trail, but other than that it just doesn't seem plausible. I'm still a rookie, though, and usually can spend all day on 10 or less heh .__.

 

We're in the same boat, although I think we found 20 one day in West Virginia. They were cool caches too. I think that is why folks like us have difficulty understanding how finding 960 is Geocaching. However, for those that do power trails, it is Geocaching. I liken it to religion. You won't understand until you know.

[William Webb Ellis]

Once they picked up a soccer ball and ran with it, the new game was great fun but it was no longer soccer.

No, it was not soccer. It was football.

 

Soccer refers to the game played under the rules maintained by certain governing bodies - nowadays the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), but originally the English Football Association. The name soccer is in fact a shortening of Football Association.

 

Geocaching has few rules and no true governing body. Groundspeak maintains some guidelines for the listing of geocaches on their site and these sort of lend themselves to some de facto statements such as "GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions." However even for this statement it can be argued that there is no rule forcing the seeker to use GPS to find a cache. And even if the hider depends on some other method to determine coordinates, the reviewer likely be unaware, and even then might not hold up the publication of the cache.

 

It is clear that under current guidelines power trails are listed on Geocaching.com and finds by seekers of these caches count in the find count just like every other cache.

 

briansnat is entitled to an opinion, but he doesn't get to make up facts.

 

Only I, William Webb Ellis, can break the rules and make up facts. I hereby state that the expression Fixed That For You and the acronym "FTFY", were first used by a certain schoolboy at Rugy School in the year 1823.

[team tisri]

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion.

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

 

Don't forget, logging a throwdown as a find, instead of a DNF with a 'fixed your cache for the next finder' log.

 

If throwdowns are allowed all you need to do is have 1000 film pots in the back seat of your car, chuck one out of the window when the GPS reading drops to zero feet, and claim them all as found. You don't even need to stop the car.

[jholly]

I still cant understand how people can get even just 20 or more in a day. I can understand if they're easy and right next to each other on a trail, but other than that it just doesn't seem plausible. I'm still a rookie, though, and usually can spend all day on 10 or less heh .__.

I've done a bit over 100 one day. Urban environment, good density, none were part of a trail, all were separately and uniquely hid although a couple groups were by the same CO. Carefully plotted route, checking satellite views first to find the parking lots to cross so I didn't have to go back out into traffic. Just planning and execution. I regularly do 30+ a day while doing road trips. Again planning it out so I can get the ones right by the ramps or on a pull out on a two lane road, avoid going into town or a couple miles on a side road. And experience doesn't hurt for picking out the more cleverly hid caches.

[+Ambrosia]

I don't know if there is an exact definition of geocaching (from the finder's perspective), but mostly I see it defined/described as finding a hidden container using GPS technology and signing the log. If that is the broad definition of geocaching, then Brian's amended statement is more accurate in my opinion.

I have a "that's not geocaching" response to what goes on along numbers run trails like the ET Highway, but it isn't directed at the caches themselves. Rather, it's directed to some of the "shortcuts" that are used by many who are doing the ET Highway numbers run trail. For example, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-and-drop) breaks the fundamental "return the geocache to its original location" rule of geocaching, and leapfrogging (and other divide-and-conquer techniques) are just armchair logging by another name.

 

Don't forget, logging a throwdown as a find, instead of a DNF with a 'fixed your cache for the next finder' log.

 

If throwdowns are allowed all you need to do is have 1000 film pots in the back seat of your car, chuck one out of the window when the GPS reading drops to zero feet, and claim them all as found. You don't even need to stop the car.

We've always joked about this, but now they have drive by events, so who knows?

[+thebruce0]

One person says geocaching is this... another says geocaching is that. Who's right?

Go!

[+Sagefox]

I still cant understand how people can get even just 20 or more in a day.

I've done a bit over 100 one day. Urban environment, good density, none were part of a trail, all were separately and uniquely hid although a couple groups were by the same CO. Carefully plotted route, checking satellite views first to find the parking lots to cross so I didn't have to go back out into traffic. Just planning and execution.

 

This kind of planning sounds like fun and I will have to give it a try. I like to occasionally match cache finds in a day to my age and that means I WILL need better planning if I try it again this year.

 

I want to mention to unicornivi that with no advanced planning other than to choose a cache dense area it is possible to find 60, or more, in a day by a single cacher, no power trails, no running, and including a mix of driving to easy caches and walking in parks to more time-consuming caches - 9am to 10pm.

 

When you team up with others the numbers can jump even higher with more eyes and experience added to the mix.

 

I enjoy a one-cache outing as much as I do finding several dozen in a day. Big-number days are just another element to this fun game.

[+The Jester]

One person says geocaching is this... another says geocaching is that. Who's right?

Go!

The one with the biggest and most durable GPSr - after beating his opponent into submission with it, it must still function to be a true validation of his viewpoint.

[+L0ne.R]

Big-number days are just another element to this fun game.

 

Generally not for the hider though.

 

When I get a couple of dozen cut-n-paste logs from a large group of cachers - 'Out caching with Mega Team today - 35 people showed up and we found 50 caches in 3 hours. Thanks for the coffee and organizing the Hike GeoBob.' 35 people who can't remember even seeing a hand-constructed container, with a handmade logbook, and some handcrafted geoswag, it makes me want to pull the cache(s). It's the post I get from a lone cacher who took the time to savour the experience and respond with a cache log that says they found our specific cache and it left an impression, that makes me reconsider.

[+Ma & Pa]

We are not interested in doing the big power trails. We have friends who have flown across the country to the desert and have done them and picked up a few thousand caches and have wonderful tales to tell of their adventures. Geocaching has given them the adventure and the memories and I have no problem with that. We are simply not interested in doing that.

 

On our trips we have sometimes found and logged 50 or more caches in one day.

 

On a recent trip through Louisiana we found 118 in one day along a road through the bayou. We even watched out for snakes and gators.

 

We have often biked the Confederation Trail on PEI and have picked up over 100 in one day on a number of occasions, when we happen to have vehicles at each end of our ride. On one such occasion we picked up our record of 182. Our only rule is that we not search for one cache until we find the previous one.

 

PAul

[+thebruce0]

Big-number days are just another element to this fun game.

Generally not for the hider though.

 

When I get a couple of dozen cut-n-paste logs from a large group of cachers - 'Out caching with Mega Team today - 35 people showed up and we found 50 caches in 3 hours. Thanks for the coffee and organizing the Hike GeoBob.' 35 people who can't remember even seeing a hand-constructed container, with a handmade logbook, and some handcrafted geoswag, it makes me want to pull the cache(s). It's the post I get from a lone cacher who took the time to savour the experience and respond with a cache log that says they found our specific cache and it left an impression, that makes me reconsider.

 

Agreed, but that's not really a 'big numbers day' issue, that's a cacher issue; people who don't really care to consciously write about their specific experience. That doesn't just happen with 'big numbers' days (arbitrary itself) - I've seen cut-n-paste logs from people with <20 finds in one day. And some people write up every log individually on high numbers days. But the worst are when someone writes up the entire day in 3 paragraphs, yet says nothing relevant to the cache itself, except for a tftc.

 

Not only is it a waste of space, and uninteresting (though there may be some COs who do like to read posts like that), it becomes a block of text that's irrelevant to people who may be looking through the cache's history to find some description of experience or tips on locating it.

 

Personally, my logs (whether high number days, power trails, or casual caching) reflect the cache and/or its listing. At worst I might have a sentence or two first about the day, but I do my best to add something specific to each cache. In the case of the ET, the importance of unique info for every single cache is much less for both finders and the CO, as they've likely given in to the high probability that everyone is macro-logging all the ones they find. For something like that, I put a lengthier summary of the day or series on the first cache, and point to that log in the rest; perhaps even mentioning which individual caches may have issues in case log detail posted to specific listings gets missed.

 

Ultimately, my logging style is to be as interesting or as relevant to the cache as possible, both for other finders and the CO, or based on what the CO expects. That's not a 'numbers' thing, that's just trying to be relevant and not an annoyance

[+Sagefox]

Big-number days are just another element to this fun game.

 

Generally not for the hider though.

 

When I get a couple of dozen cut-n-paste logs...

 

Big-find days doesn't always mean c-n-p. I don't do cut-and-paste. But then I've never had a 100+ find day on a power trail so I don't know what I would do there.

[+briansnat]

I still cant understand how people can get even just 20 or more in a day. I can understand if they're easy and right next to each other on a trail, but other than that it just doesn't seem plausible. I'm still a rookie, though, and usually can spend all day on 10 or less heh .__.

 

20 in a day would be a piece of cake. I've never logged more than 10 finds in a day, but one time I did 6 in an hour, on crutches with no pre-planning and it wasn't a power trail. I've also visited 20+ cache sites in a day and they were not right next to each other on a trail. In fact they required bushwacking over some pretty tough terrain. The only reason I didn't log them all as finds was because I was too busy chatting to get involved with the hunt.

[+L0ne.R]

Big-number days are just another element to this fun game.

 

Generally not for the hider though.

 

When I get a couple of dozen cut-n-paste logs...

 

Big-find days doesn't always mean c-n-p. I don't do cut-and-paste. But then I've never had a 100+ find day on a power trail so I don't know what I would do there.

 

I agree that it doesn't have to mean c-n-p but it usually is, or at least the types of logs people write up have nothing to do with the individual caches. They are usually "Found 55 caches today with GeoBob. This was number 43. TFTC." Of the cache group that blasted through the area (not a PT area), 24/25 were that type of log. No mention of the cache, except by one person.

 

It's been my experience that group caching (combined with power caching) involves very little time at a cache. Maybe a couple of minutes tops. Sign and go. No time to savor the experience. No time to spend making notes. By the end of the day, there's not much to remember about the caches. Fine for the finder who enjoys geocaching mostly for the social aspect. But for the cache owner, they're left with an empty reward.

Edited March 18, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+DARKSIDEDAN]

Every 90 seconds for the whole day. What about Rest Breaks, Toilet Breaks, Caches you cant find straight away, Fueling the car, Traffic, Finding a safe place to stop, Changing drivers, Eating, ect. Its not possible.

[Keystone]

I am closing this thread as having been improvidently bumped.