"x caches in a day" challenge caches

[+narcissa]

just because you think you can't do something doesn't mean no one can't.

 

Conversely, just because you claim you did something doesn't mean you did.

 

The real point being that as these challenges get more and more extreme, the more lax any sort of verification must be. So what is the merit, really?

 

Ah, but then you are calling me a liar.

 

No, I don't see evidence one way or another. You may be lying, you may not be. I don't really see why you would lie about something like that.

[+Roman!]

just because you think you can't do something doesn't mean no one can't.

 

Conversely, just because you claim you did something doesn't mean you did.

 

The real point being that as these challenges get more and more extreme, the more lax any sort of verification must be. So what is the merit, really?

 

Pretty much any challenge can be cheated on, finding 500, 800, 1000 caches in one day is a challenge but can and has been done fairly adhering to Groundspeaks definition of a find.

 

I see too many cachers get upset over challenges they don't pre-qualify for, what's the fun in that?

 

I don't really see the point in being upset at not qualifying for a challenge, nor do I see the point in lying in order to find one, nor do I see the merit in placing most of them to begin with. It's all just kind of mystifying to me, but that is true of several aspects of geocaching.

 

I could say the same about puzzle caches but others seem to like them.

[+narcissa]

I could say the same about puzzle caches but others seem to like them.

 

I don't really see the relevance here. We shouldn't ever question the merits of a given cache because someone likes something?

[+Roman!]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

We'd take turns, drive, break, sign, break, find, break, 25 caches between changing. This would be easily sustainable for 24 hours. With proper prep the only break would be to fuel the car (fuel would be with us) and bathroom breaks.

 

An experienced team could easily do 1500 caches and I lean more towards 1800 in one day.

 

As for solo, no monte, etc., I'd do the ET higway on a low to the ground sand rail, most caches you could grab without getting out saving a lot of energy. I enjoy driving and have drove from Vancouver to Vegas several times with only a couple of short (1 hour) naps. I could easily keep it up for 16 hours and I'm sure there are those that could do it longer. 50 caches/hr, which is very easy to do would mean 800 in a day solo, I could see someone breaking 1000 this way.

 

This is based on my experience of which I have my fair share so I'd say a 1,000 cache challenge should not be out f reach.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Roman!

[+narcissa]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

We'd take turns, drive, break, sign, break, find, break, 25 caches between changing. This would be easily sustainable for 24 hours. With proper prep the only break would be to fuel the car (fuel would be with us) and bathroom breaks.

 

An experienced team could easily do 1500 caches and I lean more towards 1800 in one day.

 

As for solo, no monte, etc., I'd do the ET higway on a low to the ground sand rail, most caches you could grab without getting out saving a lot of energy. I enjoy driving and have drove from Vancouver to Vegas several times with only a couple of short (1 hour) naps. I could easily keep it up for 16 hours and I'm sure there are those that could do it longer. 50 caches/hr, which is very easy to do would mean 800 in a day solo, I could see someone breaking 1000 this way.

 

This is based on my experience of which I have my fair share so I'd say a 1,000 cache challenge should not be out f reach.

 

So the challenge is for 6 people to find 1000 caches between them?

[+Roman!]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

We'd take turns, drive, break, sign, break, find, break, 25 caches between changing. This would be easily sustainable for 24 hours. With proper prep the only break would be to fuel the car (fuel would be with us) and bathroom breaks.

 

An experienced team could easily do 1500 caches and I lean more towards 1800 in one day.

 

As for solo, no monte, etc., I'd do the ET higway on a low to the ground sand rail, most caches you could grab without getting out saving a lot of energy. I enjoy driving and have drove from Vancouver to Vegas several times with only a couple of short (1 hour) naps. I could easily keep it up for 16 hours and I'm sure there are those that could do it longer. 50 caches/hr, which is very easy to do would mean 800 in a day solo, I could see someone breaking 1000 this way.

 

This is based on my experience of which I have my fair share so I'd say a 1,000 cache challenge should not be out f reach.

 

So the challenge is for 6 people to find 1000 caches between them?

 

I think I said 1,000 caches is possible solo and what exactly is wrong with group caching?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Roman!

[+narcissa]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

We'd take turns, drive, break, sign, break, find, break, 25 caches between changing. This would be easily sustainable for 24 hours. With proper prep the only break would be to fuel the car (fuel would be with us) and bathroom breaks.

 

An experienced team could easily do 1500 caches and I lean more towards 1800 in one day.

 

As for solo, no monte, etc., I'd do the ET higway on a low to the ground sand rail, most caches you could grab without getting out saving a lot of energy. I enjoy driving and have drove from Vancouver to Vegas several times with only a couple of short (1 hour) naps. I could easily keep it up for 16 hours and I'm sure there are those that could do it longer. 50 caches/hr, which is very easy to do would mean 800 in a day solo, I could see someone breaking 1000 this way.

 

This is based on my experience of which I have my fair share so I'd say a 1,000 cache challenge should not be out f reach.

 

So the challenge is for 6 people to find 1000 caches between them?

 

I think I said 1,000 caches is possible solo and what exactly is wrong with group caching?

 

Nothing is wrong with either, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into a "challenge cache." It seems quite clear that almost anybody can chuck 1000 pill bottles out the window of a car in a day without much problem, in a group or alone.

[+Roman!]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

We'd take turns, drive, break, sign, break, find, break, 25 caches between changing. This would be easily sustainable for 24 hours. With proper prep the only break would be to fuel the car (fuel would be with us) and bathroom breaks.

 

An experienced team could easily do 1500 caches and I lean more towards 1800 in one day.

 

As for solo, no monte, etc., I'd do the ET higway on a low to the ground sand rail, most caches you could grab without getting out saving a lot of energy. I enjoy driving and have drove from Vancouver to Vegas several times with only a couple of short (1 hour) naps. I could easily keep it up for 16 hours and I'm sure there are those that could do it longer. 50 caches/hr, which is very easy to do would mean 800 in a day solo, I could see someone breaking 1000 this way.

 

This is based on my experience of which I have my fair share so I'd say a 1,000 cache challenge should not be out f reach.

 

So the challenge is for 6 people to find 1000 caches between them?

 

I think I said 1,000 caches is possible solo and what exactly is wrong with group caching?

 

Nothing is wrong with either, I'm just trying to understand how this fits into a "challenge cache." It seems quite clear that almost anybody can chuck 1000 pill bottles out the window of a car in a day without much problem, in a group or alone.

 

Who's chucking? I said find.

 

As for those placing the PTs, yah, they're chucking them out the window. Obviously you don't like them, I don't see the need to make up stuff.

[+L0ne.R]

just because you think you can't do something doesn't mean no one can't.

 

Conversely, just because you claim you did something doesn't mean you did.

 

The real point being that as these challenges get more and more extreme, the more lax any sort of verification must be. So what is the merit, really?

 

Ah, but then you are calling me a liar.

 

Nope. Just saying I need to see evidence/proof that it's possible that you (or anyone) actually did as you claim. If it were a world record would the Guinness World Record people be calling the person claiming a world record a liar because they require evidence?

[+L0ne.R]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

Why stop there? Rent a fleet of vans. Make it an event. If you get 200 vans to show up with 3 people each you can get thousands of caches done in a day. First van does the caches 1-10 caches. Van2 does the 11-20 caches. If my math is right....Van200 does 1990-2000. You'd also break a record for 2000 caches done in less than 20 minutes.

 

How about every cacher in North America finds as many caches as they can in one designated day. Logging each cache as Team North America. Then everyone on Team NA logs those caches and everyone who claims to be part of Team NA qualifies for any challenge cache that requires people to log 100s or 1000s of finds in a day (without any other restriction). Imagine though that not only do you qualify for 1000-caches-in-a-day challenges but you also qualify for a LOT of other caches that require attributes, and high D/T ratings.

 

Where's the limit?

[+The A-Team]

Anyways, back to topic, what's the limit, based on my personal experience if I were to mount a challenge I'd rent a mini van and get a team of 6 and yes, use the three cache monte method (I would never replace a non PT cache nor leapfrog).

 

Why stop there? Rent a fleet of vans. Make it an event. If you get 200 vans to show up with 3 people each you can get thousands of caches done in a day. First van does the caches 1-10 caches. Van2 does the 11-20 caches. If my math is right....Van200 does 1990-2000. You'd also break a record for 2000 caches done in less than 20 minutes.

 

How about every cacher in North America finds as many caches as they can in one designated day. Logging each cache as Team North America. Then everyone on Team NA logs those caches and everyone who claims to be part of Team NA qualifies for any challenge cache that requires people to log 100s or 1000s of finds in a day (without any other restriction). Imagine though that not only do you qualify for 1000-caches-in-a-day challenges but you also qualify for a LOT of other caches that require attributes, and high D/T ratings.

 

Where's the limit?

Huh?

 

Roman!'s theoretical situation uses methods generally-accepted by power trail owners and finders. Your proposals are so absurdly exaggerated that there's no longer any connection with reality. I don't see Roman! suggesting anything even remotely close to that.

 

If you asked me where I'd like the limit to be, it would be at "a team is OK, but no three-cache-monte or leapfrogging". I think if you did a poll of all cachers, you'd end up with the line, on average, falling somewhere between my line and Roman!'s "a team with careful three-cache-monte is OK, but no leapfrogging".

[+narcissa]

Roman!'s theoretical situation uses methods generally-accepted by power trail owners and finders. Your proposals are so absurdly exaggerated that there's no longer any connection with reality.

 

If someone had explained this "power trail" thing to me a few years ago I would have said the same thing.

 

Team North America, YEAH.

[+The Jester]

just because you think you can't do something doesn't mean no one can't.

 

Conversely, just because you claim you did something doesn't mean you did.

 

The real point being that as these challenges get more and more extreme, the more lax any sort of verification must be. So what is the merit, really?

 

Ah, but then you are calling me a liar.

 

Nope. Just saying I need to see evidence/proof that it's possible that you (or anyone) actually did as you claim. If it were a world record would the Guinness World Record people be calling the person claiming a world record a liar because they require evidence?

But by your standard, that wouldn't prove anything to you. You've stated only a video record of the entire activity would make you believe. An independent observer, like used of Guinness, wouldn't be the same.

 

Taking you 'standard', where is the proof of the last hundred finds you claim? Please post the video, unbroken, unedited showing each find. Using your example, I don't believe you've found them. Kind of a ridiculous request isn't it.

 

And with the CG capabilities today, I doubt even a video would be absolute proof anymore.

 

BTW, are you from Missouri?

[+L0ne.R]

Taking you 'standard', where is the proof of the last hundred finds you claim? Please post the video, unbroken, unedited showing each find. Using your example, I don't believe you've found them. Kind of a ridiculous request isn't it.

 

I'm not claiming to have accomplished something extreme that defies logic. The pace and endurance are incredible to me.

Roman can continue to claim to have found 500 caches (no throwdowns, signing every log) in 6 hours. That's his perogative. As it's mine to claim that I found 1 D1.5/T3 a couple of days ago. You and most others can believe the 500 in 6 hours claim, that's your perogative. You can also go ahead and be skeptical of my D1.5/T3 find as well. (If the owner requires evidence I can provide it, a photo of me with the cache next to the tree roots.)

 

I continue to be skeptical until I see some hard evidence, from anyone doesn't have to be Roman, that one person signing all of the 500 logs can accomplish this feat. No one has yet to provide definitive proof of even 50 caches found in 1/2 an hour. It's seems to be bothering people that I'm skeptical and won't jump on the bandwagon that says there's no limit to how many can be found. Although I agree, there is no limit if we keep loosening up the definition of what a find is and allow for "team" finds (Team North America).

 

Getting back to topic. Creating challenge caches to glorify this style of play disturbs me. It's not good for the game - it encourages more and more power trails and power trail style caching.

Edited April 3, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It may be "possible" but not without "team" work to find caches continuously without a break for 16+ hours. It's not possible for one individual driving/biking/walking himself to do. I think that one-person caching should be the litmus test. One person finding a cache and signing the log (no throwdowns, no 3-cache-monte). Anything else stretches the definition of a find. It's fine if you want to personally call it a find, that's your thing, but for challenge caches it shouldn't be encouraged.

IIRC, LiL Devil found more than 500 caches solo on the ET Highway. It may have been someone else, but I know they found more than 500 caches solo, driving a motorcycle. No throwdowns, no three cache monte, no leapfrogging or other teamwork, all caches signed personally.

 

I remember reading the log from someone that did the ET highway on a motorcycle as well. If I recall, he found 750 or so.

 

 

[+The Jester]

I'm not claiming to have accomplished something extreme that defies logic. The pace and endurance is incredible to me.

If only one person claimed that they had done it, I might accept "defies logic", but too many have shown that it can and has been done. There was a video in one of the previous threads showing a team doing exactly what you want (not the full hour, but enough to show it can be done, especially with a team).

 

While it may be "incredible to me [you]" that it could be done, that fact that 'extreme' feats (this isn't what I'd call extreme, staying awake and active for 24 hours is easy, I've gone 55 hours before) are done all the time. I'm a rock climber (solid 5.7/5.8) and have looked at the upper end routes and think it's incredible that someone can climb it, but I don't doubt everyone who says they've climbed it.

 

You see, what you personally believe about the truth has no effect on the truth. There are some who still claim nobody could get to the moon, and all the videos are fake.

[+narcissa]

It still seems like this sort of challenge cache is totally out of context when placed in a region where this geocaching side game is non-existent. I can understand why locals would find it a bit surprising to see this published.

 

I'm all in favour of geocaches that are truly challenging, but there comes a point when it seems obvious that people are just placing caches to be found by specific people, and not for the sake of challenging other geocachers.

[+jellis]

If we did over 800 in a day doing the swap, I don't see how it could be unthinkable to do 500 with actually signing the logs and no swapping.

[+Konza Coyote]

I'm neither a fan of powercaching nor of challenge caches where big numbers play a role. I'm curious however what is the largest number of caches required to be found within a single day to be allowed to log a challenge cache. Recently in my country a much debated "800 caches in a day" challenge has been published (only 2 Austrian cachers, one the cache owner, qualify - they have been in the US on the ET trail). Are there challenge caches that require more than 800 caches a day? How frequent are "x caches in a day" challenges for high values of x?

Links to such caches are appreciated.

 

A TARDIS or another sort of time machine is a necessary TOTT for such challenges. Those three cachers obviously have one.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Konza Coyote

[+rjb43nh]

Being from New Hampshire there is no chance for me to do a large number of caches in a single day locally. That doesn't mean that I can't hop a plane to Nevada and do the E.T. highway or RT-66 in California. If you check Project-GC you can find that there are a large number of people who have a large number of finds per day. My caching buddy and I found 877 in a 13-14 hour day on the E. T. highway and there are 490 cachers in the U.S. who have found more per day than we have. There are about 375 who have found more than 1000 caches per day and the top number of finds per day is 2485.

 

Using some of the logic presented in this thread, I know what I have done and doubt that others can do more, so the 490 cachers or teams above me must have lied or cheated. It could also mean that I'm either too lazy to put in the extra time and effort to accomplish finding more, or that I just like to complain about other cachers and the way they play the game. Maybe being over 70 years old is slowing me down. ;-) As a note, I personally know a local cacher who did more than I did per day on the E.T. highway, and he was alone.

Edited April 11, 2015 by rjb43nh

[vagabond]

It may be "possible" but not without "team" work to find caches continuously without a break for 16+ hours. It's not possible for one individual driving/biking/walking himself to do. I think that one-person caching should be the litmus test. One person finding a cache and signing the log (no throwdowns, no 3-cache-monte). Anything else stretches the definition of a find. It's fine if you want to personally call it a find, that's your thing, but for challenge caches it shouldn't be encouraged.

 

Teamwork opens up all kinds of methods and arguments about what a legitimate find is. Even with regards to teamwork I have yet to see definitive proof (uncut video) that a 3-person team (one driving, 2 retrieving) can keep up a 2-minute pace for one hour.

 

I don't think challenge caches should encourage people to stretch the basic legitimate definition of a find. But I'm one lone voice in the .1% minority. So I'm certain that 500-or-greater-cache challenges will not go away and will instead increase.

 

My argument is that some challenge caches do require a cacher to stretch the definition of a find. Many challenge caches encourage (perhaps inadvertently) people to stretch their definition of a find by requiring high numbers of cache types in one day, which are really only do-able by "teamwork" where most of the qualifiers didn't actually do what it takes to complete a puzzle/mystery, multi, Wherigo or LBH, retrieve that cache, and sign the log, some in the team never even see the cache. Things they may not do normally, it weren't for the desire to qualify for a challenge cache.

 

Doesn't matter what you believe, fact is I found over 500 caches in about 6 hours signing every log myself at GZ, no stamps, no throw downs and no moving the caches, even by Cezanne's standards, these would all be finds.

 

And the best part, I had an awesome time with my kids.

I did 450 on the 66 cache run signing the logs myself and stopping so the dog could check his Pmail all in about an 10 hr period.

For all the naysayers look at Ventura Kids and see what they have done in a 24hr period usually a 3 person team

[+lamoracke]

My state has a 500 a day challenge which I find personally annoying because its effectively physically impossible to complete in my state but its listed here, so, you basically have to qualify elsewhere to do it. However, I just have it in my ignore list as I do not do those kind of power trails.

Edited April 11, 2015 by lamoracke

[+jellis]

We have one in our area that is 200 puzzles in a day. There is an area you can do them but most of my friends did them and I wasn't there. So I just ignore ones like that and anything involving other countries.

[+niraD]

We have one in our area that is 200 puzzles in a day. There is an area you can do them but most of my friends did them and I wasn't there. So I just ignore ones like that and anything involving other countries.

Yeah, all the caches on my ignore list are nearby challenge caches that I don't expect ever to complete. A nearby "x caches in a day" challenge cache would certainly go on my ignore list, unless the x in question were less than or equal to my current "best" of 28.

[+narcissa]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

[+L0ne.R]

We have one in our area that is 200 puzzles in a day.

 

Challenges like that encourage people to hide power trails of puzzles which limit users to only those who are puzzle experts, ask other cachers for the answers, or share puzzle finals en masse with other cachers trying to qualify for "x caches in a day" challenges.

 

Some puzzle/mystery cache owners put a lot of effort into puzzle cache hides. Then along comes wannabe challenge cache qualifiers who treat the non-powertrail-well-constructed puzzle like all it's worth is a smiley to qualify for another more important achievement --- the 200 puzzles in a day challenge. High number "X caches in a day" challenge caches contribute to and encourage a disrespect of quality caches.

 

 

[+Fredact]

Does rule 6 "One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game." prevent a challenge like "Cacher must find exactly one other cache on the day he finds this challenge cache"?

[+Roman!]

Does rule 6 "One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game." prevent a challenge like "Cacher must find exactly one other cache on the day he finds this challenge cache"?

 

Hmmm, I think it should be ok as everyone has multiple days they only find one cache but what if the number was exactly 100 caches or 257 caches, would it ever not be ok to publish and if so at what number?

Edited April 11, 2015 by Roman!

[+niraD]

Does rule 6 "One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game." prevent a challenge like "Cacher must find exactly one other cache on the day he finds this challenge cache"?

I am not a reviewer, and I don't play one on TV, but I would expect that that challenge would NOT be allowed, for exactly that reason. Logging another find should never disqualify you for a challenge cache.

[+Sagefox]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

[+L0ne.R]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

 

Depends on one's definition of a find. Seems some standards are quite loosey-goosey. And power cachers like it that way and encourage more of it. Almost anything counts, with the one exception of armchair logs.

 

A find is a throwdown (which many of the ET finds are), or a switcheroo (which most of the ET finds are), or counting any cache that any member of the team finds (which many of the ET finds are, and many group caching finds are).

Group caching where some of the group never sees the cache is still OK and not considered armchair logging because they were physically present somewhere along the way, when a group of people got together to cache and all log under one team name.

 

Stats page is no big deal either. It can be easily manipulated. You check your chart and find the best you've done is 97 caches in one day. So you go back over your caches and change the find date of 3 of them. Ta da, you qualify for the 100 caches in one day challenge cache.

 

It's about sloppy standards, re-defining what a "find" is, and the absurdity of "finds" when it comes to power caching - which most challenge caches glorify.

Edited April 12, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+Roman!]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

 

Depends on one's definition of a find. Seems some standards are quite loosey-goosey. And power cachers like it that way and encourage more of it. Almost anything counts, with the one exception of armchair logs.

 

A find is a throwdown (which many of the ET finds are), or a switcheroo (which most of the ET finds are), or counting any cache that any member of the team finds (which many of the ET finds are, and many group caching finds are). Group caching where some of the group never sees the cache is still OK and not considered armchair logging because they were physically present somewhere along the way, when a group of people got together to cache and all log under one team name.)

 

Stats page is no big deal either. It can be easily manipulated. You check your chart and find the best you've done is 97 caches in one day. So you go back over your caches and change the find date of 3 of them. Ta da, you qualify for the 100 caches in one day challenge cache.

 

It's about sloppy standards, re-defining what a "find" is, and the absurdity of "finds" when it comes to power caching - which most challenge caches glorify.

 

And you know all this how?

 

Your continued progression from something acceptable to total absurdity reflects your hatred and ignorance of power trails.

[vagabond]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

 

Depends on one's definition of a find. Seems some standards are quite loosey-goosey. And power cachers like it that way and encourage more of it. Almost anything counts, with the one exception of armchair logs.

 

A find is a throwdown (which many of the ET finds are), or a switcheroo (which most of the ET finds are), or counting any cache that any member of the team finds (which many of the ET finds are, and many group caching finds are). Group caching where some of the group never sees the cache is still OK and not considered armchair logging because they were physically present somewhere along the way, when a group of people got together to cache and all log under one team name.)

 

Stats page is no big deal either. It can be easily manipulated. You check your chart and find the best you've done is 97 caches in one day. So you go back over your caches and change the find date of 3 of them. Ta da, you qualify for the 100 caches in one day challenge cache.

 

It's about sloppy standards, re-defining what a "find" is, and the absurdity of "finds" when it comes to power caching - which most challenge caches glorify.

 

And you know all this how?

 

Your continued progression from something acceptable to total absurdity reflects your hatred and ignorance of power trails.

 

Ah it's just his opinion, and we all know what's said opinions

[+narcissa]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

 

I don't think it's about being "sloppy" with verification, it's about being open to logging practices that probably wouldn't fly with someone placing a "find 100 terrain 5 caches" kind of challenge.

[+L0ne.R]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

 

Depends on one's definition of a find. Seems some standards are quite loosey-goosey. And power cachers like it that way and encourage more of it. Almost anything counts, with the one exception of armchair logs.

 

A find is a throwdown (which many of the ET finds are), or a switcheroo (which most of the ET finds are), or counting any cache that any member of the team finds (which many of the ET finds are, and many group caching finds are). Group caching where some of the group never sees the cache is still OK and not considered armchair logging because they were physically present somewhere along the way, when a group of people got together to cache and all log under one team name.)

 

Stats page is no big deal either. It can be easily manipulated. You check your chart and find the best you've done is 97 caches in one day. So you go back over your caches and change the find date of 3 of them. Ta da, you qualify for the 100 caches in one day challenge cache.

 

It's about sloppy standards, re-defining what a "find" is, and the absurdity of "finds" when it comes to power caching - which most challenge caches glorify.

 

And you know all this how?

 

 

* Youtube ET caching evidence.

* GC Blog evidence. The blog where the ET highway was glorified. The team that did the highway admitted in the replies that they did the following:

We used the method where you swap out the container and while we drove from cache to cache, someone stamped our group stamp in the log...the freshly stamped cache would be swapped out at the next cache. We brought 50 film canisters to help with maintaining caches along the way. This is a very typical method on the ET Highway

* Some of the responses in this discussion admit to re-defining a find and defend those methods because they are done to power trail caches.

[+Roman!]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

So if the challenge CO did have rigorous standards hardly anyone would qualify? Your comment seems more to imply that people with over 1000 finds in one day are cheating in some way rather than the CO being sloppy with the verification.

 

Since the stats pages include our best-day count the CO's verification is actually very easy.

 

Depends on one's definition of a find. Seems some standards are quite loosey-goosey. And power cachers like it that way and encourage more of it. Almost anything counts, with the one exception of armchair logs.

 

A find is a throwdown (which many of the ET finds are), or a switcheroo (which most of the ET finds are), or counting any cache that any member of the team finds (which many of the ET finds are, and many group caching finds are). Group caching where some of the group never sees the cache is still OK and not considered armchair logging because they were physically present somewhere along the way, when a group of people got together to cache and all log under one team name.)

 

Stats page is no big deal either. It can be easily manipulated. You check your chart and find the best you've done is 97 caches in one day. So you go back over your caches and change the find date of 3 of them. Ta da, you qualify for the 100 caches in one day challenge cache.

 

It's about sloppy standards, re-defining what a "find" is, and the absurdity of "finds" when it comes to power caching - which most challenge caches glorify.

 

And you know all this how?

 

 

* Youtube ET caching evidence.

* GC Blog evidence. The blog where the ET highway was glorified. The team that did the highway admitted in the replies that they did the following:

We used the method where you swap out the container and while we drove from cache to cache, someone stamped our group stamp in the log...the freshly stamped cache would be swapped out at the next cache. We brought 50 film canisters to help with maintaining caches along the way. This is a very typical method on the ET Highway

* Some of the responses in this discussion admit to re-defining a find and defend those methods because they are done to power trail caches.

 

so what is wrong with swapping containers according to the definition of a find, the cache was found, the log was signed.

 

I think not climbing a tree and logging a tree cache would be more wrong.

 

Regardless, the main thing about PTs, the thousands that have done them had fun, sorry if they cause you grief but overall they are a benefit to geocaching.

[+niraD]

so what is wrong with swapping containers according to the definition of a find, the cache was found, the log was signed.

Well, if the CO doesn't approve of the three cache monte, then it's vandalism.

 

If the CO does approve of the three cache monte, then it isn't wrong the way vandalism or theft is wrong. But it isn't geocaching, since geocachers "return the geocache to its original location". And since challenge caches are supposed to involve "a geocaching-related qualification", they shouldn't encourage or accept the three cache monte.

 

IMHO and all that.

[+Roman!]

so what is wrong with swapping containers according to the definition of a find, the cache was found, the log was signed.

Well, if the CO doesn't approve of the three cache monte, then it's vandalism.

 

If the CO does approve of the three cache monte, then it isn't wrong the way vandalism or theft is wrong. But it isn't geocaching, since geocachers "return the geocache to its original location". And since challenge caches are supposed to involve "a geocaching-related qualification", they shouldn't encourage or accept the three cache monte.

 

IMHO and all that.

 

Firstly I am talking about where it's ok by the CO.

 

Secondly it is geocaching, this is a way geocaching has evolved

 

Thirdly, nowhere does it say you have to return the cache to its location to log a find, after all GS did approve of and we still have moving caches. Returning a cache is an accepted expectation just as is swapping on a PT.

 

The first ever person to find a cache did it alone with no PAF, if you've ever cached in a group and not made the find, if you've ever asked anyone but the CO for help, if you've ever looked at past logs for hints you have changed what geocaching is.

 

Things evolve, rules change, it ain't 2001 anymore.

[+Touchstone]

Thirdly, nowhere does it say you have to return the cache to its location...

 

When you are finished, put the cache back exactly as you found it, ...

 

Link for reference:

 

How do I find the geocache...

 

Returning a cache is an accepted expectation just as is swapping on a PT.

 

That's a bit of a stretch.

[+Roman!]

Thirdly, nowhere does it say you have to return the cache to its location...

 

When you are finished, put the cache back exactly as you found it, ...

 

Link for reference:

 

How do I find the geocache...

 

Returning a cache is an accepted expectation just as is swapping on a PT.

 

That's a bit of a stretch.

 

What are the rules of geocaching?

If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

Write about your find in the cache logbook.

Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

Anything else is accepted proper etiquette as defined by the geocaching community, swapping container on PT caches where permitted by the CO is accepted.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Roman!

[+Touchstone]

Anything else is accepted proper etiquette as defined by the geocaching community, swapping container on PT caches where permitted by the CO is accepted.

 

If this is true, then why bother with a container/logsheet at all? Seems like a pointless exercise.

 

So just to be clear, should I be explicitly stating on my active Listings that I do no allow such swapping? Are there standard definitions of what a PT is, and if so can you point me to a reference?

 

I'm not sure everyone here is as well versed in this apparent unwritten code of *proper etiquette* that you talk about, and if this is the general direction that the Community is taking, I'd like to replace my expensive containers with inferior, less waterproof containers, to spare myself the ongoing expense of replacing containers after people have swapped them out.

[+Roman!]

Anything else is accepted proper etiquette as defined by the geocaching community, swapping container on PT caches where permitted by the CO is accepted.

 

If this is true, then why bother with a container/logsheet at all? Seems like a pointless exercise.

 

So just to be clear, should I be explicitly stating on my active Listings that I do no allow such swapping? Are there standard definitions of what a PT is, and if so can you point me to a reference?

 

I'm not sure everyone here is as well versed in this apparent unwritten code of *proper etiquette* that you talk about, and if this is the general direction that the Community is taking, I'd like to replace my expensive containers with inferior, less waterproof containers, to spare myself the ongoing expense of replacing containers after people have swapped them out.

 

Its not the direction the community is taking, it's been going on for years, there is some common sense when deciding whether to use swapping as a tactic and no your one off cache does not need to explicitly state no swapping and your ammo cans are not and never should be in danger.

 

Again, just like others, taking this to a proposterous extreme.

 

PTs are a large part of geocaching now, swapping is an accepted practice by both COs and cachers regardless of your definition of a find and the best part is we are all having fun doing them.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Roman!

[+Sagefox]

snip

snip

I don't think it's about being "sloppy" with verification, it's about being open to logging practices that probably wouldn't fly with someone placing a "find 100 terrain 5 caches" kind of challenge.

 

I see what you mean. You are not talking about verification, it is the method people use to find caches. I should have seen that.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Team Sagefox

[+Sagefox]

I don't really see a problem here. Just how many people are actually going to find 1000 caches in one day by any method? I suspect the percentage of active cachers that qualify for this one-day-one-k challenge is very, very low.

 

And how many of those people are actually going to fudge finds by using the wrong date or use teams in separate cars splitting up the route and all log all caches as found?

 

Trying to hold power trail caching to the same standard as non p-t caching is just not going to be very productive if the goal is to get people to change through peer pressure. It's like the topics/threads where people used to complain about the use of the word muggles and wanting it to stop. The momentum is just too great for a few people to change it.

[+niraD]

What are the rules of geocaching?

If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

Write about your find in the cache logbook.

Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

Geocaching is a high-tech scavenger hunt using GPS. This container is a part of that game. The basic rules are:

1. If you take something, then leave something.

2. Sign the log.

3. Put the container back where you found it.

[+Touchstone]

Again, just like others, taking this to a proposterous extreme.

 

Perhaps, but not unthinkable IMO. The problem with *common sense* is that it's not all that common. It still doesn't answer my question on where this is written. Certainly enough threads around here about "unwritten Guidelines" that get applied ad hoc. I think it's fair to ask where this is written for the general consumption of the masses so that everyone understands the expectations. Don't you think? After all, we're not mind readers.

[+Roman!]

Again, just like others, taking this to a proposterous extreme.

 

Perhaps, but not unthinkable IMO. The problem with *common sense* is that it's not all that common. It still doesn't answer my question on where this is written. Certainly enough threads around here about "unwritten Guidelines" that get applied ad hoc. I think it's fair to ask where this is written for the general consumption of the masses so that everyone understands the expectations. Don't you think? After all, we're not mind readers.

 

How is PAF ok or group caching when only one member of the group finds the cache, there have always been interpretations of the rules and as a community we determine what is and isn't ok with some shades of grey. As geocaching evolve new interpretations such as swapping will be introduced and either accepted or not by the majority, in this case it is accepted.

 

I'm sure in the future some new aspect of caching will create a similar debate.

 

Unless you never read any logs before making the find, looked at a spoiler picture, asked for help, cached in a group, etc., then you really shouldn't be questioning how others cache.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Roman!

[+L0ne.R]

Again, just like others, taking this to a proposterous extreme.

 

Perhaps, but not unthinkable IMO. The problem with *common sense* is that it's not all that common. It still doesn't answer my question on where this is written. Certainly enough threads around here about "unwritten Guidelines" that get applied ad hoc. I think it's fair to ask where this is written for the general consumption of the masses so that everyone understands the expectations. Don't you think? After all, we're not mind readers.

 

How is PAF ok or group caching when only one member of the group finds the cache, there have always been interpretations of the rules and as a community we determine what is and isn't ok with some shades of grey. As geocaching evolve new interpretations such as swapping will be introduced and either accepted or not by the majority, in this case it is accepted.

 

I'm sure in the future some new aspect of caching will create a similar debate.

 

Unless you never read any logs before making the find, looked at a spoiler picture, asked for help, cached in a group, etc., then you really shouldn't be questioning how others cache.

 

When "x caches in a day" challenge caches glorify and encourage playing by "unwritten guidelines" I think that's a problem and not good for the game in general. When "how others cache" starts to affect cache owners who hide quality caches, then it's a problem that stops being a personal style of play.

[+Mudfrog]

I have no doubt that is possible to complete a 1000 caches in a day challenge to the satisfaction of the person placing the cache, mostly because I can't imagine that the person placing such a cache would have rigorous standards.

 

Exactly! The owner(s) of these probably don't give a hoot how their caches are claimed. Three cache monte, leapfrogging, cache swapping, armchair, and/or Team North America methods are all good. I figured that, like many "finders" these days, these COs just want those big numbers.

 

For me, this is all good if it's something a person enjoys. But for the most part,,, it's not geocaching and it would be great if it had it's own website. Personally, i don't think an "x caches in a day" challenge should be listed on gc.com because it requires people to perform activities i don't consider geocaching.

[+narcissa]

I think it's plain to see that the "preposterous extreme" was already achieved when this side game started happening in the first place.