Jump to content

How the heck do you find a cache every 90 seconds


The Comrade
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

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.

This is not a goal of power trails, this is a goal of many many cachers. Power trails enable cachers to do this more easily. However, to suggest that power trails are the root cause and that these goals did not exist before power trails and that cachers never cut corners or engaged in "questionalbe behaviours" before power trails is not fact nor accurate.

Link to comment

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.

This is not a goal of power trails, this is a goal of many many cachers. Power trails enable cachers to do this more easily. However, to suggest that power trails are the root cause and that these goals did not exist before power trails and that cachers never cut corners or engaged in "questionalbe behaviours" before power trails is not fact nor accurate.

 

I certainly agree with this statement. Smartphones and the growth in the number of cachers is probably two contributing factors, but power trails are a much easier target.

Link to comment
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.
This is not a goal of power trails, this is a goal of many many cachers. Power trails enable cachers to do this more easily. However, to suggest that power trails are the root cause and that these goals did not exist before power trails and that cachers never cut corners or engaged in "questionalbe behaviours" before power trails is not fact nor accurate.
While the goal to find as many caches in as short a time as possible may be the goal of geocachers, and not the goal of numbers run trails, it seems pretty clear that the goal of numbers run trails is to facilitate finding as many caches in as short a time as possible.

 

And yes, there were certainly some questionable shortcuts taken on numbers runs before the advent of modern numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail. However, the three cache monte (aka cache shuffling aka swap-n-drop) was invented to take advantage of the fungible containers along a number run trail. And numbers run trails have certainly taken throwdowns to a whole new level as well.

Link to comment

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.

This is not a goal of power trails, this is a goal of many many cachers. Power trails enable cachers to do this more easily. However, to suggest that power trails are the root cause and that these goals did not exist before power trails and that cachers never cut corners or engaged in "questionalbe behaviours" before power trails is not fact nor accurate.

 

I certainly agree with this statement. Smartphones and the growth in the number of cachers is probably two contributing factors, but power trails are a much easier target.

 

I think that one of the worse things that has come out of power trails is that cachers feel that it's okay, almost required to leave cheap disposable, never to be maintained micro caches every where they go. Almost like rabbit droppings.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

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.

This is not a goal of power trails, this is a goal of many many cachers. Power trails enable cachers to do this more easily. However, to suggest that power trails are the root cause and that these goals did not exist before power trails and that cachers never cut corners or engaged in "questionalbe behaviours" before power trails is not fact nor accurate.

 

I certainly agree with this statement. Smartphones and the growth in the number of cachers is probably two contributing factors, but power trails are a much easier target.

 

I am not about to suggest that power trails are the sole contributing factor for questionable behaviors nor would I suggest that none of these questionable behaviors existed before power trails. However, to point out that because some people will use throwdowns and engage in some of the other questionable practices associated with a PT on non-PT, that power trails should be immune to scrutiny is ludicrous. While I haven't done an exhaustive survey it just stands to reason that because power trails facilitate finding as many caches in as short a time as possible, and that in order to find as many caches as possible some people will cut corners to reduce the time at each cache, that the incentive provided by power trails has a higher correlation to "bad behavior" than non-power trail caching.

Link to comment
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.

I did not mean to cause a fuss about this. I only meant to say that in my own opinion, If I am with others in the group, the one who finds it gets credit for it. That is how we play.And when I am just with geodog, you will never see my stats as more the 20 in a day. Others can do it all day if they want, I just limit my time so it will always be fun for me. I feel that if I were to do it like 10 hours I would loose interest in the fun of it. But like I said before, That is just me. I am not pushing my beliefs on others play the way that makes you happy. If teams of 10 go out and find 300 in a day and they all log them so be it, I cannot stop them nor do I want to. I just do not find that fun. :huh:

Link to comment
I did not mean to cause a fuss about this.
I don't think there's much of a fuss. I'm a but curious, just because I've never been in a group that plays the way you do.

 

If I am with others in the group, the one who finds it gets credit for it. That is how we play.
Given that this is how you play, what do you think of the name "Sudden Death" to describe this style (in contrast with Three Musketeers style and Huckle Buckle Beanstalk style)?

 

And FWIW, I'm not a big numbers cacher either. My "best day" was 16 caches in one day, and that was a lot for me.

Link to comment
I did not mean to cause a fuss about this.
I don't think there's much of a fuss. I'm a but curious, just because I've never been in a group that plays the way you do.

 

If I am with others in the group, the one who finds it gets credit for it. That is how we play.
Given that this is how you play, what do you think of the name "Sudden Death" to describe this style (in contrast with Three Musketeers style and Huckle Buckle Beanstalk style)?

 

And FWIW, I'm not a big numbers cacher either. My "best day" was 16 caches in one day, and that was a lot for me.

 

I am curious as well. If one person gets to claim the find, then do the others come back at a later time and look for it again? Or do they put the cache on ignore so that it doesn't pop up on their radar every time they want to go caching in that area?

Link to comment

 

I just limit my time so it will always be fun for me. I feel that if I were to do it like 10 hours I would loose interest in the fun of it. But like I said before, That is just me.

 

It's not just you. Be it looking for an individual cache, or a bunch of caches, as soon as I stop having fun, I stop.

Link to comment
If I am with others in the group, the one who finds it gets credit for it. That is how we play.

I am curious as well. If one person gets to claim the find, then do the others come back at a later time and look for it again? Or do they put the cache on ignore so that it doesn't pop up on their radar every time they want to go caching in that area?

 

Yes. My questions as well.

 

That you limit your self to 20 caches in an outing and that you don't want to cache 10 hour days is fine. I am just curious why you would not log a cache as found that you were there when it was found and perhaps even had your hand on it.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Wasn't trying to bump, sorry. Was just putting another viable option out there as far as how it was possible some folks are running their #'s up.

 

"(or removing the entire cache and swapping it with another)" I have actually seen cache pages where the CO recommends this practice for their particular power trails.

 

http://coord.info/GC46JZ5

 

"•You are welcome to sign ahead and switch out the containers."

Edited by RangerDoc
Link to comment

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.

That's certainly possible as well, as is everything in between.

Link to comment

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.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

+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.

Wasn't trying to bump, sorry. Was just putting another viable option out there as far as how it was possible some folks are running their #'s up.

 

"(or removing the entire cache and swapping it with another)" I have actually seen cache pages where the CO recommends this practice for their particular power trails.

 

http://coord.info/GC46JZ5

 

"•You are welcome to sign ahead and switch out the containers."

 

It all depends on how you define a legitimate find. I've been geocaching long enough that I've seen what is considered a legitimate find change many times. Groundspeak, for the most part, allows the community to define what a legitimate find is and more times than not sides with the geocache owner when there is a dispute.

 

A better argument would be that geocaches that make up a geotrail are their own type of geocache deserving of their own unique icon. Each type of icon lets the geocacher know what special rules, if any, apply to that geocache. Geocaches that belong to a geotrail have enough of their own special rules (container swapping, close proximity to previous cache, group signed logs, small but quickly locatable, etc.) to make them a unique type of geocache.

Link to comment
A better argument would be that geocaches that make up a geotrail are their own type of geocache deserving of their own unique icon. Each type of icon lets the geocacher know what special rules, if any, apply to that geocache. Geocaches that belong to a geotrail have enough of their own special rules (container swapping, close proximity to previous cache, group signed logs, small but quickly locatable, etc.) to make them a unique type of geocache.
I agree that container swapping is characteristic of many numbers run trails, although there are exceptions where the cache owners want the caches replaced where found.

 

The other points don't seem unique to numbers run trails to me. There are plenty of saturated areas where caches are located in close proximity. Group signed logs are the norm for many group geocaching trips. There are an enormous number of micro-size caches that are quickly locatable.

Link to comment

This thread is looping back around, but I agree with others it depends on your definition of " legitimate (standard caching method)".

 

To me, the standard method when caching with others includes:

- Once one member of the group finds it, it is found. All claim the find.

- It is valid for the person who found it to sign the logs for the others.

- It is valid for that person to sign a special team name for the day. This is common when there is a large group, just to save everyone signing and (for micros/nanos especially) filling up the logbook.

 

On a power trail, I would extend it to:

- Team members take turns who drives and who jumps out to sign the log.

 

The last point maybe more controversial, but to me it seems a natural extension of normal practice. If I am the driver, and the caches are obvious (I can see it), and I stop the car so the cache is by the passenger's door, I can begin to get out - but before I can my friend will have already found it. So in reality I don't get out of my seat.

 

There have been several posts which have done it with this definition.

 

A solo person could also do it, but I think that would be difficult.

Link to comment

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.

 

If you saw it with your own eyes and could vouch that they held each log in their hand and signed/stamped/stickered the log, and each cache was there so there were no throwdowns, then I will believe that it's possible for one person to find a cache every 90 seconds and continue until they find 960 caches in 24 hours.

 

If it's a competition there has to be rules that everyone abides by, otherwise one could say it's possible to find 1000 caches in 10 seconds - get 1000 people under one group name, each standing by a cache with a group sticker in their hand, backing peeled and ready to be placed, someone blows a whistle and they simultaneously open the cache, fish out the log and place the sticker. Then again, if you allow everyone to have the cache in hand with the log rolled out to the spot where the sticker will go, then start the clock, you could probably say it's possible to find 1000 caches (or even more if you can convince more people to help you break a "record") in one second.

Link to comment

I agree that container swapping is characteristic of many numbers run trails, although there are exceptions where the cache owners want the caches replaced where found.

 

The other points don't seem unique to numbers run trails to me. There are plenty of saturated areas where caches are located in close proximity. Group signed logs are the norm for many group geocaching trips. There are an enormous number of micro-size caches that are quickly locatable.

 

Think about as if you are trying to teach someone who has never geocached before about geocaching. You've explained all the basic types of geocaches to them and then you mention geotrails. You also mention that container swapping is allowed but only for geocaches that are part of geotrails. They then ask you how do you know when a geocache is part of a geotrail. Since there is no geotrail icon that isn't much help. You could tell them that the titles will all be similar but that isn't always true. You could tell them to look at the description but not all geotrail caches identify themselves in the description in fact some descriptions are very short. Okay, so tell them to look for geocaches with very short descriptions. Nope, that doesn't work either. How about container size? No, we still haven't found a distinguishing feature. Proximity? Again, nope. How about checking the log to see if one person signed it and multiple people logged online. Still not a good indication of a geotrail. How about a group of geocahes placed close together all by the same person? No, because some geotrails are placed and maintained by a group of people each one taking care of their part of the trail. Maybe take a couple of these features together?

 

It's still difficult, especially for someone new to geocaching, to tell the difference between a group of traditional micro/small caches like what is commonly found in a lot of urban ares or along a popular trail and a geotrail.

Edited by Glenn
Link to comment

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.

 

If you saw it with your own eyes and could vouch that they held each log in their hand and signed/stamped/stickered the log, and each cache was there so there were no throwdowns, then I will believe that it's possible for one person to find a cache every 90 seconds and continue until they find 960 caches in 24 hours.

 

If it's a competition there has to be rules that everyone abides by, otherwise one could say it's possible to find 1000 caches in 10 seconds - get 1000 people under one group name, each standing by a cache with a group sticker in their hand, backing peeled and ready to be placed, someone blows a whistle and they simultaneously open the cache, fish out the log and place the sticker. Then again, if you allow everyone to have the cache in hand with the log rolled out to the spot where the sticker will go, then start the clock, you could probably say it's possible to find 1000 caches (or even more if you can convince more people to help you break a "record") in one second.

 

I didn't tag along on the lunar landings, but I believe landing on the moon is possible and happened. It is mathematically possible to rack up these huge numbers. I've seen videos that prove people who are motivated enough can find caches at a rate of about a cache a minute. And I personally know people who have racked up these amazing numbers. I know their character and if they told me they did it, that's good enough for me. It's a shame that because some people have used questionable methods (leapfrogging, container swapping, splitting into separate groups, etc.) that those who have done it legitimately constantly have their integrity questioned.

 

Personally speaking, if I were on one of these power trail runs I would not log a find on a cache unless I got out of the car to search. However team finds, meaning the entire team was at the cache location and participated in the hunt, is a widely accepted practice in the geocaching world. If you mean that everyone, including the driver left the vehicle to hunt the cache then the mathematical limit is lower, but with a driver and one or two people to retrieve the cache and sign the log, it can and has been done. Whether or not the driver should log the find can be debated. However that doesn't change the fact that it can be done.

 

There have been naysayers throughout the years whenever records were set. I recall people calling BruceS a liar when he logged 70 some finds in a weekend. He felt it necessary to come to the forums to explain exactly how he did it and still people called him a liar. I recall Keystone and CarleenP setting a then record of 260+ caches in 24 hours (pre power trail days). Again they were called liars. Only they had witnesses who with them at various points in their run who were able to vouch for them. The witness were also called liars. Keystone is many things, but a liar is not one of them.

 

Because you couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Link to comment
Think about as if you are trying to teach someone who has never geocached before about geocaching. You've explained all the basic types of geocaches to them and then you mention geotrails. You also mention that container swapping is allowed but only for geocaches that are part of geotrails.
No, I don't. I would explain the basics of geocaching to them: go to the coordinates, find the cache, sign the log, and replace the cache as found. I am certainly not going to encourage newbies to use the three cache monte.
Link to comment

I agree that container swapping is characteristic of many numbers run trails, although there are exceptions where the cache owners want the caches replaced where found.

 

The other points don't seem unique to numbers run trails to me. There are plenty of saturated areas where caches are located in close proximity. Group signed logs are the norm for many group geocaching trips. There are an enormous number of micro-size caches that are quickly locatable.

 

Think about as if you are trying to teach someone who has never geocached before about geocaching. You've explained all the basic types of geocaches to them and then you mention geotrails.

 

Personally, when I talk about geocaching to others, I don't even bring up urban micros much less power trails. If I'm teaching someone about geocaching, we're hiking along a mountain trail finding geocaches. I then will mention that there is a whole different type of cache that is hidden in most of the parking lots of our city and that some people will never get more than 100' from their car to find a cache. They usually shake their head and think that that's silly. I won't get into moving caches along a trail because I don't agree with the idea. I found 105 of the original ET Hwy power trail caches and posted 4 DNFs. I wouldn't be surprised to find that I'm the only one that has posted DNFs, but isn't that what your supposed to do when you don't find a cache? The ones I found, I picked up off the ground, signed the log and put them back where I found them.

 

I have no problem being with a group, actively looking for a cache when another member of the group finds the cache, holds it up so we can all see it and then signs our group name to it. We were hiking a trail once and came across a T4 up in the rocks and well out of sight of the trail. I wasn't up to the task but two went up and found the cache. They put the group name in the log, but I did not log a find as I was not involved in finding it.

 

I think that there is a line for all of us that determines whether we log a cache or not. I know that I will log things where others won't and there are others that will log things that I won't. I found that as I go along, that my line has been moved more towards the conservative side where I have seen others take on an any goes attitude. At some point, I learned that I don't HAVE to find every cache and at that point, the game changed for me. It became much less stressful and a lot more fun.

Link to comment

I didn't tag along on the lunar landings, but I believe landing on the moon is possible and happened......

 

Because you couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

But I wouldn't just take it on someone's word that they went to the moon or that they made it to the moon in record time.

 

It's a different kettle-of-fish if someone tells me they ran a mile in 3 minutes, but then go on to explain that they ran the first 500 yards, then 5 other people took turns finishing the run but it counts as a personal 3-minute-mile for him. No he, personally, did not run a 3 minute mile. And if we're going to say one-mile relay races count, then there should be a consensus about how many people can be in that relay. Otherwise you can have 176 people at 10 yard intervals and at a signal have them run 10 yards and say that all 176 people ran a mile in a couple of seconds.

 

I'm not saying that because I couldn't keep up a 90 second per cache pace for 24 hours therefore no one could, I'm saying there is no hard evidence that someone has done this. Only that 2 min 40 second video of 2 guys finding 3 caches on Route 66 and looking pretty exhausted after the 3rd find. The rest of the evidence is take-my-word-for-it pronouncements. And I'm saying I would believe it if you actually witnessed 960 cache finds in 24 hours by one individual (I'd even allow for team caching like the 2 guys in the Rte 66 video), but I want it witnessed by judges/referees with a reputable geocaching history.

 

Link to comment

I didn't tag along on the lunar landings, but I believe landing on the moon is possible and happened......

 

Because you couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

But I wouldn't just take it on someone's word that they went to the moon or that they made it to the moon in record time.

 

It's a different kettle-of-fish if someone tells me they ran a mile in 3 minutes, but then go on to explain that they ran the first 500 yards, then 5 other people took turns finishing the run but it counts as a personal 3-minute-mile for him. No he, personally, did not run a 3 minute mile. And if we're going to say one-mile relay races count, then there should be a consensus about how many people can be in that relay. Otherwise you can have 176 people at 10 yard intervals and at a signal have them run 10 yards and say that all 176 people ran a mile in a couple of seconds.

 

I'm not saying that because I couldn't keep up a 90 second per cache pace for 24 hours therefore no one could, I'm saying there is no hard evidence that someone has done this. Only that 2 min 40 second video of 2 guys finding 3 caches on Route 66 and looking pretty exhausted after the 3rd find. The rest of the evidence is take-my-word-for-it pronouncements. And I'm saying I would believe it if you actually witnessed 960 cache finds in 24 hours by one individual (I'd even allow for team caching like the 2 guys in the Rte 66 video), but I want it witnessed by judges/referees with a reputable geocaching history.

 

I think that Brian explained it pretty well. When someone who I know and trust their integrity tells me something, I believe that they are telling me the truth. I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that they are lying and tell them to "Prove it". Do you have people in your life that you trust to tell the truth?

 

I did 50 caches on the ET trail in one hour. I then drove 50 miles and started again and did another 50 in an hour. When my highly motivated friends tell me that they did the original 1000 caches in one vehicle and without moving caches or pre-signing logs, in less than 24 hours, I believe them based on my own experience and the fact that I trust their integrity.

Link to comment

I'm not saying that because I couldn't keep up a 90 second per cache pace for 24 hours therefore no one could, I'm saying there is no hard evidence that someone has done this. Only that 2 min 40 second video of 2 guys finding 3 caches on Route 66 and looking pretty exhausted after the 3rd find. The rest of the evidence is take-my-word-for-it pronouncements. And I'm saying I would believe it if you actually witnessed 960 cache finds in 24 hours by one individual (I'd even allow for team caching like the 2 guys in the Rte 66 video), but I want it witnessed by judges/referees with a reputable geocaching history.

 

But that is not the way that this game is played. No cacher owes you or any other cacher anything beyond an on-line log. If you cannot come to terms with that, it says more about you than it does about them.

Link to comment

I'm not saying that because I couldn't keep up a 90 second per cache pace for 24 hours therefore no one could, I'm saying there is no hard evidence that someone has done this. Only that 2 min 40 second video of 2 guys finding 3 caches on Route 66 and looking pretty exhausted after the 3rd find. The rest of the evidence is take-my-word-for-it pronouncements. And I'm saying I would believe it if you actually witnessed 960 cache finds in 24 hours by one individual (I'd even allow for team caching like the 2 guys in the Rte 66 video), but I want it witnessed by judges/referees with a reputable geocaching history.

 

But that is not the way that this game is played. No cacher owes you or any other cacher anything beyond an on-line log. If you cannot come to terms with that, it says more about you than it does about them.

 

Sorry. I don't believe it. I need to be convinced and because-I-said-so is not convincing enough. No one owes me anything. Go ahead and make your public claims, just don't expect me not to voice my skepticism and ask how it is possible? Am I not allowed to question such claims, without insinuating that I'm calling someone a liar? I am not calling anyone a liar. Their rules-of-competition differ from mine and there's no even playing field when it comes to power trail competition.

Link to comment

 

I'm not saying that because I couldn't keep up a 90 second per cache pace for 24 hours therefore no one could, I'm saying there is no hard evidence that someone has done this.....

 

Let me say that I have no reason to doubt the first part of your statement about you personally not being able to keep up the pace to find 960 or some other number of caches in 24 hours but the second part of your statement is completely illogical or backwards. If you don't believe that someone (or anyone) can do this, the burden is on you to provide hard evidence that they can't or haven't done it instead of the other way around. If you have a birther mentality then nothing anyone can say or do would convince you otherwise, even if the results were notarized. :rolleyes:

 

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 am not calling anyone a liar....

 

It is certainly disingenuous of you to say that you're not calling a large number of cachers liars when you also say that what they claim isn't factual and their cache finds are not legitimate. Hundreds of cachers have found over 1000 caches per day and there is no reason not to believe them. We get it that you don't like power trails or the cachers who do and that's fine, just admit that and quit trying to smear others who do power trails and have put the time and effort into enjoying finding over 960 finds per day.

Edited by rjb43nh
Link to comment

I am not calling anyone a liar.

When reputable cachers post in the forums and say they did a 1000+ cache power trail without resorting to throwdowns, leapfrogging, three card monte or other tactics some find questionable, you are pretty much calling those posters liars. So, let's get away from that line of discussion, thank you.

 

"I disapprove of throwdowns and leapfrogging as means of increasing find rates on power trails" is an acceptable statement. "Nobody who claims to find 1000 caches without using these tactics is believable" is not an acceptable statement.

Link to comment

 

I did 50 caches on the ET trail in one hour. I then drove 50 miles and started again and did another 50 in an hour. When my highly motivated friends tell me that they did the original 1000 caches in one vehicle and without moving caches or pre-signing logs, in less than 24 hours, I believe them based on my own experience and the fact that I trust their integrity.

 

I believe that they managed what they claimed, but for me this still remains a group performance even if all of them are in one car and no caches are moved.

 

I cannot really imagine that a single person (needs to do all the driving, finding the caches, signing the log books, rehiding the containers, drinking etc) can keep up with that pace over this long time span.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

...I cannot really imagine that a single person (needs to do all the driving, finding the caches, signing the log books, rehiding the containers, drinking etc) can keep up with that pace over this long time span.

Cezanne

Here is a quote from a log from 12-13-10 on the original E.T. Highway series where one person (who I know personally) did over 1000 in under 24 hours (looks like 22:45 if my math is correct). Some people are obviously driven.

 

.......I put two headlamps with green light strapped onto one head band. My plan was to keep one on all the time and switch to the other when the batteries run out. I attached my high-power flashlight as well as my Oregon GPSr to my body to avoid dropping or losing them in the process, open my ballpen marker and throw the cover onto the floor of the car. Ever since then i hold the pen in my mouth except when i took a bite or a sip. Took my picture with my iPhone at the sign and off I went. I found the first cache at 1:40AM. I worked hard to develop a system to sign log sheets. I'm not against moving containers, for you still have to find the hides and all these hides aren't container specific. But as a one man team this wasn't possible. I would get seriously hurt if I tried signing the log while running to the car or killed if I chose to sign it while driving. I already had to log the find on my GPSr and reroute to the next one. I end up with system which better suit my needs. I popped the canister open, carefully pulled out the rolled log sheet and without unrolling it I found an empty spot where I could scribble the M in the circle. I could always adjust the size of this signature to fit on the sheet. Soon I was able to open the cache, sign it and close it well under 10 seconds.

There were a couple of things that helped me a lot on this run. The fact that I could reach over 50 caches without getting out of car, many new log sheets just recently replaced and easy finish after ET 900 to name few.

 

The timeline:

12/12 23:40 leaving Las Vegas

12/13 1:40 ET 001

3:50 ET 100

6:15 ET 200

8:00 ET 300

10:00 ET 400

11:40 ET 500

13:50 ET 600+1

16:10 ET 700+1

18:30 ET 800+1

21:15 ET 900+2

23:25 ET 1000+2

23:55 ET 1021+2

12/14 4:05 returning to Las Vegas.

Link to comment
I cannot really imagine that a single person (needs to do all the driving, finding the caches, signing the log books, rehiding the containers, drinking etc) can keep up with that pace over this long time span.
Why would the single person need to do all the driving? If someone were willing to drive so that someone else could find all the containers, sign all the logs, and replace all the containers, would those finds no longer be "legitimate"? I didn't do any of the driving on my personal "best day"; are those 16 finds somehow now longer "legitimate"?

 

As I've said before in this thread, I won't hold people doing a numbers run to a higher standard than I hold myself to. I've logged finds for caches where I was part of a three musketeers style group (although I personally prefer huckle buckle beanstalk style). I've logged caches where someone else did the driving. I've logged caches that I never actually touched (although I was there and was involved in the group effort to find the cache).

 

But FWIW, I've heard of a solo numbers run using a motorcycle that netted several hundred finds. So even with the "do all the driving" requirement, some extreme numbers are possible.

Link to comment

 

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

 

You can count us among them.

I don't either but I wanted the experience to try one. We had a minivan we rented. Four of us in the car and we kept the sliding door opened. One driving, one spotting the cache, one stamping the log sheet (with our group name) and one running to each cache. Yes, it's tiring, we also switched positions as not to wear down the runner (mostly me cause I was the quickest). To me it reminds me of kids in the back seat saying "are we there yet?" but instead it's "are we done yet" We didn't try to do them all in one day and we had breaks for some regular caching, eating and yes, potty breaks. Otherwise it would just drive you crazy to try to keep that pace up for 24hrs. My fun was seeing the baby lizards under the rocks. One had a baby Horned Lizard.

Though I don't consider it real caching, we did go to each cache, no leap frogging cause we only had one car. I have done other power trails but nothing like the ET experience and I don't think I would do one like that again.

Link to comment

 

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

 

You can count us among them.

 

Me also. I prefer to sign all my own logs. To each their own I guess. I think it is just what you want to get out of it. If this is fun for those groups, I doesn't hurt me any.

Link to comment

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. :rolleyes:

Edited by Ron Streeter
Link to comment

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.

This is not a goal of power trails, this is a goal of many many cachers. Power trails enable cachers to do this more easily. However, to suggest that power trails are the root cause and that these goals did not exist before power trails and that cachers never cut corners or engaged in "questionalbe behaviours" before power trails is not fact nor accurate.

Right. Don't blame the gun, blame the person who pulls the trigger.

Link to comment

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. :rolleyes:

 

Aha, I understand. You can have it all, & I'm here to tell you how! :grin:

 

Look at the satellite image for a nearby LPC. GZ is in a huge parking lot. Get ready to go, & leave your GPS at home. :o

 

If possible, hike to the shopping center. If you drive, park as far as you can from GZ. When you arrive, look around. The sights are different than in a forest, but there are sights. Beautiful people. Not so beautiful people. People acting politely. People acting rudely. Window displays in stores. The aroma of fresh pizza from the food court. And since you're not in a hurry you'll see things for the first time. Now enjoy the hunt as you find the pole. Hike here and there, & then hike through the mall, visit stores you never visited ever before, sit for a while, move on, then return home, enriched and rejuvenated.

 

There may be a better defense of LPC's somewhere in the universe, but I haven't seen it. :laughing:

 

Let me paraphrase a quote that's been said about music: "The more you love caching, the more caches you love."

Link to comment

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. :rolleyes:

 

Aha, I understand. You can have it all, & I'm here to tell you how! :grin:

 

Look at the satellite image for a nearby LPC. GZ is in a huge parking lot. Get ready to go, & leave your GPS at home. :o

 

If possible, hike to the shopping center. If you drive, park as far as you can from GZ. When you arrive, look around. The sights are different than in a forest, but there are sights. Beautiful people. Not so beautiful people. People acting politely. People acting rudely. Window displays in stores. The aroma of fresh pizza from the food court. And since you're not in a hurry you'll see things for the first time. Now enjoy the hunt as you find the pole. Hike here and there, & then hike through the mall, visit stores you never visited ever before, sit for a while, move on, then return home, enriched and rejuvenated.

 

There may be a better defense of LPC's somewhere in the universe, but I haven't seen it. :laughing:

 

Let me paraphrase a quote that's been said about music: "The more you love caching, the more caches you love."

 

Here's an easier way to enjoy LPC caches at the strip mall.

 

Look at the map of geocaches. See the ones that look like they are in the parking for Wally World. Look at the satellite view - if you see an area the size of Bolivia, neatly divided into little rectangles, with a green box in the middle of it, it's in the parking for Wally World. The next stage of the process is critical. Click the green box on the map, and click the name of the cache when the little bubble appears. Then click "Log your visit", select "Found it" and write "TFTC" in the box. Then save your log. "TFTC" is a secret code that says "I didn't really find it, but I know you're not going to bother checking so I'll claim it anyway".

 

Having done all this the cache will disappear from your "nearest unfound" list and you don't have to worry about it any more. You also get a bigger find count, which is useful for bragging rights at upmarket cocktail parties (*)

 

(*) If you don't want to be invited to the next upmarket cocktail party.

Link to comment

Find a place where somebody placed thousands of very easy caches 512 feet apart. Get a team of people in several cars. 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.

 

Does the driver get credit for the cache as well? If so That's not geocaching ! It's one thing if 3 or 4 people go and one person finds it while the others are looking for the cache. However a driver was not at the cache site. They should not get credit.

Link to comment

Does the driver get credit for the cache as well? If so That's not geocaching ! It's one thing if 3 or 4 people go and one person finds it while the others are looking for the cache. However a driver was not at the cache site. They should not get credit.

 

Typically on a power trail road or highway the cache is only several feet from the car and this makes it different from what we might consider to be normal caching. It is a team effort it is fun for those doing it.

 

Find a place where somebody placed thousands of very easy caches 512 feet apart. Get a team of people in several cars. Driver drops jumpers at different caches, then each person on the team takes credit for every find.

 

I think the multiple cars team concept must be rare and one driver dropping multiple finders at different caches is even rarer.

Link to comment

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.)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...