50,000+ caches- how possible?

[knowschad]

Alien head is not a power trail.

Alien Head gets hit like it does because of the E.T. trail. You know that.

[knowschad]

Finding the caches is fun.

 

Logging them I find to be work.

 

This is wny I don't have a lot more finds.

Finding caches is fun.

 

but posting in the forums is funnerer.

 

This is why I have more posts than finds.

You've been a member since 2002, and you only have 13,336 posts? That is really really sad and pathetic.

 

 

<wink!>

[+Roman!]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

[+wmpastor]

 

So, less than 2 months in the game and only your third post on this forum and you're calling other cachers sad and pathetic? Nice.

 

Might want to re read what I actually said, especially the part about IN MY OPINION I would find that sad and pathetic and yet wished those who wanted to do such trails good luck.

 

People take on challenges because they exist.

 

Why climb Mt. Everest? Train for a year, spend at least $75,000, leave home for a month, freeze, exhaust yourself, gasp for oxygen, experience the pain and nausea of altitude sickness, risk death, trudge through snow and up steep terrain, etc. For what? And yet Everest is so busy that there are now issues with litter and schedule coordination.

[+Roman!]

Alien head is not a power trail.

Alien Head gets hit like it does because of the E.T. trail. You know that.

 

ET highway is but one of hundreds of power trails, driving down a paved road and running 10 - 20 feet into the desert causes way less damage than hiking in the forest and finding hidden caches, I've seen some pretty torn up areas.

[+gpsblake]

18,000 I think was the highest total of the year for geocaches found in 2014 alone. That's 50 a day. I am surprised it's not more, you can spend just a few hours and get that many, especially on a power trail or urban area like Seattle. I got 25 yesterday with about 3 hours of effort, the rest of the day was devoted to cycling.

[knowschad]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

[knowschad]

And yet Everest is so busy that there are now issues with litter and schedule coordination.

Thank you. I think that is essentially the point that many are trying to make about power caching. 'Nuff said?

[knowschad]

Alien head is not a power trail.

Alien Head gets hit like it does because of the E.T. trail. You know that.

 

ET highway is but one of hundreds of power trails, driving down a paved road and running 10 - 20 feet into the desert causes way less damage than hiking in the forest and finding hidden caches, I've seen some pretty torn up areas.

Is that all it is? 10-20 feet into the desert from a paved road to cache the Alien Head? I must apologize. I had no idea. That makes backpacking in the wilderness look absolutely atrocious.

[+Roman!]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

Alien head is not a power trail.

Alien Head gets hit like it does because of the E.T. trail. You know that.

 

ET highway is but one of hundreds of power trails, driving down a paved road and running 10 - 20 feet into the desert causes way less damage than hiking in the forest and finding hidden caches, I've seen some pretty torn up areas.

Is that all it is? 10-20 feet into the desert from a paved road to cache the Alien Head? I must apologize. I had no idea. That makes backpacking in the wilderness look absolutely atrocious.

 

Do you not know the difference between geoart and a power trail? Alien head has nothing to do with my comment, if you have issues with alien head take it up with someone else.

[knowschad]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

 

Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing.

[+Roman!]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

 

Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing.

 

Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating.

 

Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching.

 

Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Roman!

[knowschad]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

 

Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing.

 

Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating.

 

Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching.

 

Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy.

 

I don't totally disagree with your suggestion. We talk a good line with CITO, but is it really worth anything when we drive all over the countryside to increment a number, when we burn thousands of dollars worth of gas (aggregate) to attend an event, mostly because it gets us a special digital icon? You have made some surprisingly good points there. Thank you!

Edited May 2, 2015 by knowschad

[+Roman!]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

 

Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing.

 

Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating.

 

Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching.

 

Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy.

 

I don't totally disagree with your suggestion. We talk a good line with CITO, but is it really worth anything when we drive all over the countryside to increment a number, when we burn thousands of dollars worth of gas (aggregate) to attend an event, mostly because it gets us a special digital icon? You have made some surprisingly good points there. Thank you!

 

we have to take it further, sex needs to be outlawed, no new people = less environmental impact.

 

Personally I'll pass on all this environmental stuff and enjoy my life.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Roman!

[+Mn-treker]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

 

Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing.

 

Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating.

 

Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching.

 

Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy.

 

I don't totally disagree with your suggestion. We talk a good line with CITO, but is it really worth anything when we drive all over the countryside to increment a number, when we burn thousands of dollars worth of gas (aggregate) to attend an event, mostly because it gets us a special digital icon? You have made some surprisingly good points there. Thank you!

 

we have to take it further, sex needs to be outlawed, no new people = less environmental impact.

 

Personally I'll pass on all this environmental stuff and enjoy my life.

Power trail + bike = high numbers. My geomobile gets 12.5 MPG I park it and bike one way then the other.

Then move and repeat unless I am in the State forests. Then kick in the 4 wheel drive and go for it.

Do some hiking and caching. Sometimes I even run into Fish2007 and Khoda deep in the woods far from home. While I am on the FTF trail. I do not think about the gas thing. It will get used anyway.

[+wimseyguy]

Here's a post from one of those sad and pathetic cachers in that first video. That week caching in the desert on the Rt. 66 trail with three like minded friends was one of the best weeks I have ever had. As others have already mentioned finding the caches was secondary to the stories, laughs, and inside jokes. It was so much fun that we got together the following year to do the ET Trail.

 

I've lived on the east coast my entire life, so I was spending as much time as possible enjoying the scenery. When you are stopping every 528' it's a lot easier to enjoy it than when it's passing by at 70mph too.

Caching in the dark is easy, especially when the caches are placed with excellent coords, and usually under an obvious rock pile. But the best part of the whole trip was standing out in the middle of the road, headlamps, car, and flashlights all turned off, and marveling at the night sky without the light pollution I am used to back home. I probably wouldn't have ever taken the time to experience that if those caches weren't placed there.

 

What's really sad and pathetic is sitting at your computer judging how others enjoy themselves.

[+plucka99]

And yet Everest is so busy that there are now issues with litter and schedule coordination.

Thank you. I think that is essentially the point that many are trying to make about power caching. 'Nuff said?

 

Climbing Everest comparable to a doing a 1000 cache power trail? LMFAO. More comparable to climbing an ant hill over and over again 100,000 times.

Edited May 2, 2015 by plucka99

[+wmpastor]

I think people who do power trails should consider whether they are worth the time, but also the stop-n-go wear on their vehicle and the gas.

 

One might go so far as to question the ethics of using gasoline and generating emissions in search of power trails or FTFs. But if more cachers thought about their environmental impact like that then CITO attendance would be higher.

 

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT.

 

Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found.

 

Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious!

 

 

Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have.

 

Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding?

 

awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail.

 

Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing.

 

Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating.

 

Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching.

 

Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy.

 

I don't totally disagree with your suggestion. We talk a good line with CITO, but is it really worth anything when we drive all over the countryside to increment a number, when we burn thousands of dollars worth of gas (aggregate) to attend an event, mostly because it gets us a special digital icon? You have made some surprisingly good points there. Thank you!

 

It's line-drawing. Optimum energy-saving means all events are online events. No more in-person meetings. Or we can believe that new technology is trending correctly and will save us (and conserve reasonably well in the meantime).

Edited May 2, 2015 by wmpastor

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Finding the caches is fun.

 

Logging them I find to be work.

 

This is wny I don't have a lot more finds.

Finding caches is fun.

 

but posting in the forums is funnerer.

 

This is why I have more posts than finds.

You've been a member since 2002, and you only have 13,336 posts? That is really really sad and pathetic.

 

 

<wink!>

Well, it doesn't count my 67,435 posts in the Off Topic forum.

[+TheOldfields]

Personally I'll pass on all this environmental stuff and enjoy my life.

 

'All this environmental stuff'? You mean the recognised fact that we're screwing the world?

[Keystone]

As we're well past answering how people can find 50,000+ caches, and have strayed into some discussion that bumps up against the forum guidelines, I am closing this thread.