"x caches in a day" challenge caches

[+Sagefox]

I believe I understand the anti-power trail sentiments continually presented in the forums. When I first saw the Route 66 power trail I thought "this is the end of geocaching as we know it". And when it hit the 29 mile rails-to-trails path a block from our house I really thought the sky was about to fall.

 

I gave it a lot of thought and read of the fun adventures people were having and gradually a different perspective came to me. It is just a different part of the game. I've kept my standards about what a find is and how our caches should or should not be hidden and the existence of power trails has not changed my love of the game.

 

Our trail was archived when the CO left town and has been taken over by several local cachers. We've added a good mix of container types and "quality" caches, all about 530' apart and people love it for walking and biking caching.

 

I've been to the ET and R66 trails and chose to find a whopping 77 caches by car, 25 on bike and 10 walking after dark. I had a ball! (And we spent the night at The Little A'Le'Inn including a famous Alien Burger dinner!)

 

I don't really see how an 800-in-a-day challenge presents a problem in Austria, New England or anywhere else other than that initial negative emotional response I also had.

 

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. [/size]

If you don't have a regular "quality" cache that predated a desert power trail that later surrounded it then I don't see this as a realistic concern. Quality caches still seem to get respect.

[+niraD]

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.

Why not?

 

Let's say that LongJohnMaggot has his own way of geocaching. He finds the cache, takes it home, and posts a DNF.

 

Are you sure that no one should question how LongJohnMaggot caches unless they've never read any logs before making the find, looked at a spoiler picture, asked for help, cached in a group, etc.?

Edited April 12, 2015 by niraD

[+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.

 

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.

 

I don't see puzzles as geocaching but many do, guess we are in the minority on our respective opinions.

[+Roman!]

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.

Why not?

 

Let's say that LongJohnMaggot has his own way of geocaching. He finds the cache, takes it home, and posts a DNF.

 

Are you sure that no one should question how LongJohnMaggot caches unless they've never read any logs before making the find, looked at a spoiler picture, asked for help, cached in a group, etc.?

 

Yah, that's exactly what I meant but I didn't say you shouldn't form a lynch mob, find him and hang him, just don't question him.

[+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.

 

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.

 

I don't see puzzles as geocaching but many do, guess we are in the minority on our respective opinions.

 

I found three puzzles today. I navigated to them using GPS coordinates, searched for them, found them, signed the logs, and put them back for the next finder. Why isn't that geocaching?

 

I mean, I suppose I could have just tossed an old pill bottle out the window as I drove by the GZ, but I don't think the owners would appreciate that.

[+Roman!]

Edited April 12, 2015 by Roman!

[+niraD]

Are you sure that no one should question how LongJohnMaggot caches unless they've never read any logs before making the find, looked at a spoiler picture, asked for help, cached in a group, etc.?

Yah, that's exactly what I meant but I didn't say you shouldn't form a lynch mob, find him and hang him, just don't question him.

Got it. That makes perfect sense now that you explain it that way.

[+Rebore]

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. [/size]

If you don't have a regular "quality" cache that predated a desert power trail that later surrounded it then I don't see this as a realistic concern. Quality caches still seem to get respect.

Example

[+Sagefox]

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. [/size]

If you don't have a regular "quality" cache that predated a desert power trail that later surrounded it then I don't see this as a realistic concern. Quality caches still seem to get respect.

Example

I would not exactly call this a power trail.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

If you don't have a regular "quality" cache that predated a desert power trail that later surrounded it then I don't see this as a realistic concern. Quality caches still seem to get respect.

Example

I would not exactly call this a power trail.

 

The problem is, people trying to qualify for a challenge cache will often write power trail style copy and paste in their pursuit of the numbers to qualify for a challenge.

 

Our puzzles and our multi cache normally get some really great comments when individuals or couples go looking for them. Things like: "Very cool idea. I quite enjoyed this one. We spotted the redirect and looked at it a couple times. We figured it had to be it but weren't sure. Then I examined it a little more and saw what we were looking for. Final was a neat container too. TFTC!"

The same cache gets cut and paste logs like the comments below from group cachers looking to hunt as many caches as possible in order to qualify for challenge caches:

 

"Found while out caching with the [megagroupcachers] today."

or

 

'Out caching with the megagroupcachers. Our goal was to get 50 non-traditionals to qualify for the "x multis and puzzles in a day" challenge. We started early morning & cache till late at night. Thanks for the adventures, smileys & great caches!'

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

[+narcissa]

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.

If you don't have a regular "quality" cache that predated a desert power trail that later surrounded it then I don't see this as a realistic concern. Quality caches still seem to get respect.

Example

I would not exactly call this a power trail.

 

The problem is, people trying to qualify for a challenge cache will often write power trail style copy and paste in their pursuit of the numbers to qualify for a challenge.

 

Our puzzles and our multi cache normally get some really great comments when individuals or couples go looking for them. Things like: "Very cool idea. I quite enjoyed this one. We spotted the redirect and looked at it a couple times. We figured it had to be it but weren't sure. Then I examined it a little more and saw what we were looking for. Final was a neat container too. TFTC!"

The same cache gets cut and paste logs like the comments below from group cachers looking to hunt as many caches as possible in order to qualify for challenge caches:

 

"Found while out caching with the [megagroupcachers] today."

or

 

'Out caching with the megagroupcachers. Our goal was to get 50 non-traditionals to qualify for the "x multis and puzzles in a day" challenge. We started early morning & cache till late at night. Thanks for the adventures, smileys & great caches!'

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

I have an Earthcache that was, at one time, all alone in the middle of nowhere and now has one of these silly straight lines of caches near it. It occasionally gets logged by someone who can't differentiate between traditionals and Earthcaches. If I see a log on my Earthcache that in any way refers to a container or signing a log, I just delete it with no further comment. If I saw a log thanking an entirely different person for a totally different cache than mine, I'd probably delete that log too, or at least take a look at the logbook next time I did maintenance.

[+Roman!]

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

And which cache would that be?

 

Geocaches Owned

Name Count

Total Caches Owned

No hides have been recorded.

[+narcissa]

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

And which cache would that be?

 

Geocaches Owned

Name Count

Total Caches Owned

No hides have been recorded.

 

Uh, dude, it's no big secret that some users, including this one, have hides with other accounts.

 

What, exactly, is the purpose of combing through someone's profile because they disagree with you? That's just creepy.

[+Roman!]

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

And which cache would that be?

 

Geocaches Owned

Name Count

Total Caches Owned

No hides have been recorded.

 

Uh, dude, it's no big secret that some users, including this one, have hides with other accounts.

 

What, exactly, is the purpose of combing through someone's profile because they disagree with you? That's just creepy.

 

Never would have occurred to me as its against the rules.

[+narcissa]

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

And which cache would that be?

 

Geocaches Owned

Name Count

Total Caches Owned

No hides have been recorded.

 

Uh, dude, it's no big secret that some users, including this one, have hides with other accounts.

 

What, exactly, is the purpose of combing through someone's profile because they disagree with you? That's just creepy.

 

Never would have occurred to me as its against the rules.

 

Against what rules? Please, go ahead and report me to the authorities for breaking the rules by helping my husband create geocaches on his account.

 

Again, what is the purpose of combing through people's profiles? What does that possibly contribute to the discussion?

[+Roman!]

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

And which cache would that be?

 

Geocaches Owned

Name Count

Total Caches Owned

No hides have been recorded.

 

Uh, dude, it's no big secret that some users, including this one, have hides with other accounts.

 

What, exactly, is the purpose of combing through someone's profile because they disagree with you? That's just creepy.

 

Never would have occurred to me as its against the rules.

 

Against what rules? Please, go ahead and report me to the authorities for breaking the rules by helping my husband create geocaches on his account.

 

Again, what is the purpose of combing through people's profiles? What does that possibly contribute to the discussion?

 

My apologies, I knew I should have put a at the end of my post.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Roman!

[+narcissa]

 

My apologies, I knew I should have put a at the end of my post.

 

Why is it funny to attack people's geocaching profiles in the forum?

[+thebruce0]

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.

 

Well, if your standard for a find were objective rules, or their method was not 'allowed' by the CO, then maybe. But in many cases they're not. Especially in context of the ET - did they "lie" or "cheat"? No, provided they didn't break any rules. They just have a different (and CO-condoned) standard.

Nor can the challenge owner project a 'find' standard required to complete the challenge. They can only require an objectively verifiable metric. So it may be hard to swallow if you put a lot of work into completion by your own standards, and someone comes along and "one ups" you - but rest easy in the fact that they had a different standard. If it's not about competition, then it shouldn't bother you.

 

I have a 100+ caches a day challenge; I briefly outline the requirements, as well as this taboo issue of what constitutes a find. I can't force people to 'find' by a certain standard. All I can verify are find logs in stats. But I can encourage a 'fair' standard for the purposes of the cache. And I can encourage safe caching. I even reward highest achievers with mentions in the listing. But to qualify to log the cache found, you just have to have 100 finds in a day per your stats. No standard.

Then I encourage them to describe in their log their strategy and standards - not to gloat, but to inform, enlighten, make it easier for people to feel less 'cheated' because they can see whether an easier strategy was employed to gain a higher find count. Because there is no objective standard.

 

There are some strategies that bend or break one of those 3 points of geocaching quoted in this thread, and if they're used where the CO hasn't said it's ok, then their ethics are questionable at best, but denying the finds is still not enforcable.

 

What we seem to have is a void between what constitutes the spirit of geocaching (find & sign, trade, put it back), and what is a verifiable find (single/group name signed on the logsheet).

Since ultimately there's no way to guarantee and verify a find (eg, what if the log is replaced? cache lost? no way then to verify any previous finds), then really all these arguments are debating personal ethics - most of which align with the Groundspeak-condoned ethics of geocaching.

 

Point being - accusations of lying or cheating are only valid if objective rules are broken. Yet there are exceptions, such as the ET, where the owners allow practices such as swapping and throwdowns (sometimes they are allowed if a cacher contacts the CO while at GZ and replaces the cache for them; technically a throwdown, but allowed by the CO).

 

But things like group finds, or an individual's involvement with the finding of a geocache - there will never be consensus about what is "right" and "wrong", because if the only objective rule (verifiable "Find" online) is name in the logbook, then people will always say anything toac hieve that is fair game. And technically, it is.

 

They'll probably stir up a hornet's nest of animosity against themselves from more vocal adherers to the "spirit" of geocaching, but are they "wrong"? Objectively?

Edited April 14, 2015 by thebruce0

[+Roman!]

 

My apologies, I knew I should have put a at the end of my post.

 

Why is it funny to attack people's geocaching profiles in the forum?

 

Wow

[+L0ne.R]

1429033803[/url]' post='5493857']

1429032556[/url]' post='5493850']

1429031731[/url]' post='5493846']

1429027417[/url]' post='5493833']

1428982668[/url]' post='5493680']

 

I have one cache that is about 1 kilometer from a power trail. It regularly got comments from people doing a the PT trail run and they thanked the PT owners for our cache. It decreased when I added a comment to the top of the description that it is not part of the power trail, that it belongs to us and not the PT-Trail-Owners.

 

And which cache would that be?

 

Geocaches Owned

Name Count

Total Caches Owned

No hides have been recorded.

 

Uh, dude, it's no big secret that some users, including this one, have hides with other accounts.

 

What, exactly, is the purpose of combing through someone's profile because they disagree with you? That's just creepy.

 

Never would have occurred to me as its against the rules.

 

Against what rules? Please, go ahead and report me to the authorities for breaking the rules by helping my husband create geocaches on his account.

 

Again, what is the purpose of combing through people's profiles? What does that possibly contribute to the discussion?

 

Ditto what Narcissa said. My other half and I share an account for hiding and the occasional cache we find together.

[+narcissa]

Ditto what Narcissa said. My other half and I share an account for hiding and the occasional cache we find together.

 

Oh, but apparently not for long, because it's against the rules.

[+thebruce0]

Sock puppet accounts were what Roman was referring to. Partner geocaching profiles aren't really classified as sock puppet accounts.

Thus why he should have added the to his post if he was meaning it to be in jest

[+Roman!]

Sock puppet accounts were what Roman was referring to. Partner geocaching profiles aren't really classified as sock puppet accounts.

Thus why he should have added the to his post if he was meaning it to be in jest

 

The real victim of power trails seems to be the sense of humor.

[+Rebore]

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. [/size]

If you don't have a regular "quality" cache that predated a desert power trail that later surrounded it then I don't see this as a realistic concern. Quality caches still seem to get respect.

Example

I would not exactly call this a power trail.

It definitely is in my area. Cache density is multiple times higher than in the US, and if you consider topography, property issues etc. you'll realise that it's simply not possible to place an E.T. like trail in Austria.

[+rjb43nh]

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.

 

Well, if your standard for a find were objective rules, or their method was not 'allowed' by the CO, then maybe. But in many cases they're not. Especially in context of the ET - did they "lie" or "cheat"? No, provided they didn't break any rules. They just have a different (and CO-condoned) standard..............................

 

I apologize for not using the sarcasm emoticon. If you thought I was accusing anyone of lying or cheating, you missed my point. I was trying to say that is how the naysayers would look at anyone who does more than they do, I don't really care.

[+Roman!]

.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Roman!

[+Ahern Clan]

Next week my son and I are going to do some of the E.T. Highway. And I'm not going to say what our strategy will be! LOL LOL

 

And we cache (occasionally) as a family, hence the reason for 'Clan' after our name.

 

We've done some smaller PT and yes, it is a different style of game, just as puzzle caches, Wherigo caches, earthcaches, etc. Why do I do them? Change of pace. There's no prize from GS for most found in a day or fastest to find xxx amount of caches. (If there is, please let me know!)I don't care too much for earth caches or puzzle caches. But occasionally I do them for the change of pace.

 

Of course most of the time I do your 'basic' style geocaching. (At least my understanding of what the norm calls 'basic')

 

The point for us is - having fun. We have fun when we cache, no matter if its a 5 mile hike for one cache, drive 100 miles for a single cache or do a PT. Other people have other motivational reasons.

 

Rules are guidelines. Guidelines are interpreted differently by different persons. I only hope that everyone has fun doing what they like to do in this ever-evolving hobby.

[+thebruce0]

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.

Well, if your standard for a find were objective rules, or their method was not 'allowed' by the CO, then maybe. But in many cases they're not. Especially in context of the ET - did they "lie" or "cheat"? No, provided they didn't break any rules. They just have a different (and CO-condoned) standard..............................

 

I apologize for not using the sarcasm emoticon. If you thought I was accusing anyone of lying or cheating, you missed my point. I was trying to say that is how the naysayers would look at anyone who does more than they do, I don't really care.

...d'oh.

Re-reading it now, yeah, I missed that it was sarcasm My apologies, heh

[+Hynz]

The retracted "800/day challenge" in Austria was republished as "400/day".

According to a Reviewer note (posted not before the first NA) Groundspeak has approved the listing.

 

According to the owner 800 was considered as "too extreme" and GS requested that at least 10 Austrian cacher should already be eligible.

 

With the new threshold the number of currently qualified cacher (from Austria) increased from 2 to 18

[+Rebore]

The retracted "800/day challenge" in Austria was republished as "400/day".

According to a Reviewer note (posted not before the first NA) Groundspeak has approved the listing.

 

According to the owner 800 was considered as "too extreme" and GS requested that at least 10 Austrian cacher should already be eligible.

 

With the new threshold the number of currently qualified cacher (from Austria) increased from 2 to 18

Thank you very much for the update and the detailed information.

[+jellis]

 

Yes, it is possible.

 

 

Ahh, I did some reading about powercaching and it makes a little more sense now. It doesn't sound like fun to me, but if people enjoy it, I'm happy for them. Less than 2 minutes per cache still sounds like an awfully short time, but with only 71 caches found, I'm still learning how to search effectively.

I have done some PTs but only one like the ET Hwy and it's mind boggling and in some cases send you over the edge. I wanted to try it once and did it with friends. Since they have done the one like it before they know how it will effect you so we broke it up with regular caches. But many times I sounded like a kid in the back seat saying "Are we done yet?" But as I mentioned many times before when someone asks about the PT on the ET hwy is the most enjoyable part for me was lifting the top rocks and finding a baby lizard on majority of them and one with the first time seeing a baby Horned Lizard. Now that made the trip worthwhile for me.