Victoria Cache Machine

1.8k · April 6, 2003

(Crossposted to the Canada forum and GeocachingWa mailing list).

It's a ways off, and I'm not gonna even seriously think about a route until mid-June, but add yourself to the watch list if you're interested. July 12, 4:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

I'm thinking 100 in a day is possible. Lots of virts in the downtown area.

"I'm sure she would have been thrilled to find so much pooh in a little metal box."

April 6, 2003

me after the bremerton cache machine: NEVER AGAIN!

me after the yakima cache machine: NEVER AGAIN!

me three months before the victoria cache machine: SOUNDS FUN!

April 6, 2003

I might be off the mark here, but doug and I have discussed it, and we don't agreee with the idea of 'cache machines.' We could be wrong, but they sure SEEM to be all about numbers. We enjoy finding several caches in a day, but 30 or more with a large group of people? We can imagine that only the first few people actually "find" the cache, and the rest just walk up and sign the log. Doubtful that you rehide it between cachers.

It sounds like a great party-time though. How about impact to the environment (unless you stick to well-defined and paved trails). Is environment taken into account?

When we first started geocaching, it was all about numbers to me. Recently, I have learned to take it slower and enjoy the journeys. We have started to find a couple easier caches on a weekend day, then one that is a bit more of a hike.

To be honest, today I was a bit disappointed to only find one cache, but we had a wonderful drive and adventure that made up for other potential finds. If you rush too much you will miss so many wonderful things! Please don't flame my opinion, and I won't flame yours.

--laurak of dasein

Temporarily French Polynesia's most prolific geocachers!

April 7, 2003

Having been to both of the Cache Machines, i think i'm qualified to answer those questions.

Cache Machines are indeed about numbers, but they're also about hanging out with geocachers. Having never served in the military, i can honestly say that the two CMs i've been to are as close to combat and the inherent comraderie that i'll ever experience. I'm sure that when Dave Ulmer hid that five-gallon bucket out in Redlands, he never envisioned a group of 30 people looking for it at once, but i'm also pretty sure that he never envisioned someone hiding a magnetized altoids box on the back of a stop sign and calling it a cache. (check out all my flashy emoticons!) These Cache Machine deals are like bad inside jokes about your dorm roommate at OSU--you can't really appreciate it unless you've been there.

As for environmental impact, i think we're okay on this one--SO FAR. Most of the caches in Bremerton and Yakima were totally easy and not located in sensitive areas. In fact, if i had to stereotype and generalize, i'd say that every cache we found at both CMs involved walking about 300 feet over gravel and park-grass. If there were something called the Forest Park Cache Machine or the THPRD Cache Machine, however, i'd be raising red flags.

You guys should come to this Victoria thing travisl has worked out. I can see by the description that it is the most expensive one yet, but then again, it affords me my first trip to vancouver island! Plus, they're pretty liberal when it comes to their age-of-consent laws. I figure it will be an interesting weekend.

April 7, 2003

Rather doubtful that we'd go. On-the-go 4:30am to 10pm doesn't sound like fun to us. We'll likely do some caches outside of Portland instead. We have a HUGE list of caches on our must-do list that are easily within 50 miles or less from home.

laurak

Temporarily French Polynesia's most prolific geocachers!

1.2k · April 7, 2003

Personally, I like finding caches myself and will probably never do a cache machine, unless the rules change somewhat. When someone asks me how many caches have I found, I can honestly say 300 (or whatever the number is at the time). I don't have to say, I logged 300 and of that, I found 200 and the remaining 100 I just signed the log after someone else found it for me. The biggest and most rewarding part of geocaching, in my opinion, is hunting and finding the cache. Much more satisfying than walking up to an already found cache and just signing a logbook. I would only consider doing a cache machine event if everyone were divided into small groups (say of 2-3 teams). If one of the rewards of the cache machines are meeting other geocachers, then have a mid-day barbecue where everyone meets at one location for some fun discussions about the days hunt. I read about how many caches were found during a cache machine event (37 or 68), but how many did each individual find? (5 or 6)? Can someone honestly say they found 68?

2.8k · April 7, 2003

For those who'd rather do an event cache that is different than the cache machines - I only have one suggestion.

Organize one!

1.8k · April 7, 2003

I posted this on the GeocachingWA list this morning, but it makes sense to post it here, too:

quote:
The Cache Machines turned out to be much more of a social event than even I figured they'd be. Just thinking about 'State Quarters', it's great to be talking to other geocachers on the way to one of the most spectacular vistas in the state -- and then at the cache site note an almost reverent lowering of the volume in the seekers' voices.

As for the numbers, I'll be completely honest. I like seeing my numbers go up. A "200 finds" for someone who's gone on a Cache Machine isn't as impressive as the same number of finds from someone who hasn't. The same, however, could be said for someone who seeks out a ton of virtuals -- from what I hear, anyone could easily bag 50 virts in a day trip to Salt Lake City.

Regardless, a high number of finds means to me that the seeker has been to a high number of really neat places. Moun10Bike's 900+ finds tells me that he's been to three times as many neat places than I have.

Going to ruins on Hood Canal, standing on a bluff overlooking the Yakima Canyon, gazing at the murals of Toppenish, visiting with windsurfers on Dyes Inlet, or even just talking to ducks at a city park.... Seth!, if this is what you mean by "indicative of how experienced a geocacher is," then yes, the Cache Machine numbers reflect these shared experiences.

To me, that's what the sport is all about. I'm looking forward to exploring the tip of Vancouver Island -- somewhere I've never been. My family and I might make a week-long camping trip out of it.

Maybe it's a result of the fact that I'm just not very good at finding an ammo box buried in a salal bush when I'm hunting solo, but finding the logbook or the box o' stuff is far secondary to visiting neat places. If your definition of "experienced" is "being the person on the hunt who finds the box", then my find count is probably a lot closer to 100 instead of 300, because I've logged a lot of finds that my wife has found, or my father-in-law, or GEMs, or others I've gone caching with.

I've always maintained that marking something as a find, a note, or a not found is entirely up to the seeker, subject to the cache owner's veto. I'd have great respect for someone who came on a cache machine hunt, defined a "find" differently than I do, and logged 68 notes instead of 68 finds.

As for environmental impact, once I come up with a route in a couple months, if anyone knows that we might be trampling in sensitive areas, I strongly encourage you to let me know and I'll remove that cache from the route.

"I'm sure she would have been thrilled to find so much pooh in a little metal box."

April 7, 2003

So anyway, i think i found THE hotel to stay in while in Victoria. Check out The Strath! Over 275 feet of bar!

April 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by oregone:
So anyway, i think i found THE hotel to stay in while in Victoria. Check out http://www.strathconahotel.com/! Over 275 feet of bar!

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

Right on! And with the value of the American dollar up there in the Great White North, it's just about enough to make me say "Oh, Canada!"

I'm not to big on the cache machine idea myself...but this one has sparked an interest.

-fractal

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

N 45? 30.ish

W 122? 58.ish

April 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by fractal:
Right on! And with the value of the American dollar up there in the Great White North, it's just about enough to make me say "Oh, Canada!"

I checked out the 360° view, and even though I can zoom in, I can't make out the prices on the specials menu. Too bad -- I'm drooling too!

April 7, 2003

Along with 85 meters (275 feet) of bar, the Strath can be a tad noisy near closing time, so you might want to consider that. As for the numbers, I think to each their own. While I enjoy seeing numbers go up, I am hoping to tag along with a new American friend to caches I have done, and revisited many times. So, you see, it's about the numbers, and it's not about the numbers. It's about your point of view. Come visit us dasein, and I'll take you to some gorgeous Multis that are off the geocaching mainstream.

How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on tupperware?

April 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by marinerBC:
Along with 85 meters (275 feet) of bar, the Strath can be a tad noisy near closing time, so you might want to consider that.

Man, the Strath is sounding better and better by the minute. I'm gonna try to convince LaurenCat to make an entire week of it!

April 7, 2003

I think that the local community can be counted on to provide a rousing start, and a repast of some sort. Tim Horton's coffee would be a no brainer. We will get going on this as soon as possible.

I have now checked on some room rates, and it looks pretty promising if the Group campsite deal does not work out. Stay tuned.

This will be great. If any of you decide to camp at Goldstream Group Sites, we will too.

How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a piece of tupperware?

[This message was edited by marinerBC on April 08, 2003 at 08:54 PM.]

April 9, 2003

Put us on the list please, we are vey interested.

I've gone to look for myself, if I should return before I get back, please keep me here.

April 11, 2003

We are so looking forward to meeting with all of you, and showing you some of our beautiful city, and Island hospitality!

Real cachers don't smell like Fleecy.

April 11, 2003

Frankly, the idea of group geocaching frightens me, and the thought of visting a nice city to rush from place to place seems, well, perverted. But I'm willing to think about it.

So, how do these "cache machines" work? Is it a caravan of xx vehicles like the biology field trips in college? Does everyone start at the same cache, or do you give out a list and let people choose their starting point to spread things out? Is it competitive? Why wouldn't I just relax and follow the leader to the log without ever turning on my GPS receiver? What about potty breaks? And so on... ???

April 12, 2003

HEHEHEH

You said potty

1.8k · April 12, 2003

I can't find his posting now, but someone recently described a cache machine event as a cross between a cannonball run, a chinese fire drill, and geocaching.

If your favorite part of geocaching is looking for the cache once your GPS says '0.0 feet', or if your favorite caches are all micros hidden in rock piles, the a cache machine isn't something you'd probably enjoy.

If, however, your favorite part of geocaching is getting to go to neat places that you otherwise wouldn't see, and if the hunt for the box is less important than that, then you'd probably have a lot of fun.

So, here's how it works. A few days before the event, I'll post two .PDF files. The first file will contain maps and driving directions to get from the first cache to the last cache. My mapping software (MapPoint) doesn't understand the concept of trails, so it finds the closest road to the cache, and at the closest point, instructs you to ''take local roads''. About 5% of the time, the map will give us a bum starting point, but we've always been able to figure it out so far.

The second .PDF file has the cache pages (in 'print friendly' mode) with decrypted hints, assembled in the order of the day's hunt.

At 4:30 a.m. on July 12, we'll all depart from the first cache location. Following the map, we'll hit caches number 2, number 3, and so on.

We hit as many as we can, until it gets dark, which would be about 10:00 p.m. My route currently has 138 caches on it, but I know we won't hit them all.

Most folks follow the map and hit the caches in order. Some folks hit the first few, and join in late, so they can sleep in. Some folks try to guess where we'll be, and meet up with us along the route. Some folks run the route backwards. Some folks run the route solo a week later.

Yeah, for the most part it's a caravan of vehicles, swooping in on local parks, filling the parking lots of rest areas, and lining up on the shoulder of a road. The photos from Yakima illustrate this fairly well.

Is it competitive? It has the feeling of competitiveness, but it's not really. In Bremerton, for instance, Oregone and Slinger91 jumped out ahead of the pack, and found and re-hid a couple caches before the pack got there. As soon as a find got more difficult than a two minute search, however, the pack caught up.

If you fall behind, however, it's probably impossible to catch up without skipping a cache. 25 pairs of eyes find caches faster than a solo cacher.

To keep things speedy, it helps to have stickers for the log book, or a rubber stamp. Very little trading takes place, although I've left things at a few caches.

''Why wouldn't I just relax and follow the leader to the log without ever turning on my GPS receiver?'' When you go caching with friends, why don't you do it then? Admittedly, though, when I'm at the back of the pack, my GPS doesn't do me much good because the cache has been found by the time I'm out of the car.

Potty breaks are your own problem to resolve, as is eating, getting gas, and replacing missing wheels. For the most part, you gotta hold it until you get to a cache in a park with restrooms. You might have other ideas, but I'll hold it, thanks.

Some folks have talked about a shotgun start, but that has a couple of drawbacks. First, at the first tough cache, everyone's gonna catch up with each other, and it'll be one big pack anyway. Second, if we stagger the start time, folks who start later will have no chance of getting as many caches as the first starters. Or, if we stagger the start points, folks who start at cache number 4 or 5 will never get back to get cache number 1, 2, or 3, because we have no defined end-point (we just cache until darkness drops or we drop).

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by travisl:
I can't find his posting now, but someone recently described a cache machine event as a cross between a cannonball run, a Chinese fire drill, and geocaching.

Well, my log read (if it's the one you are referring)" They are a combination of the movies Cannonball Run, and Twister (without the tornados of course)".

And yes it's a lot different than caching by yourself, or even with friends. But these things only happen twice a year, and they are a unique experience, so have an open mind.

This one will be a little different than the last two, and carpooling in rented vans/micro buses might be a great idea. I think a lot of people well leave early for this one, and even take some vacation time. So posting the PDF files 4 or 5 days before the event might be a good idea.

The last two times I used stickers that were the size of Address labels, this time I will be using a very small label to accommodate for micro logs. I know you can't take my word for it, but they are a fun time. And even if I couldn't make this one, I would print the PDF's, and make the journey when I could.

Thanks again Travis for a great twist on a great sport!

-edit spelling

[This message was edited by slinger91 on April 12, 2003 at 04:35 PM.]

April 12, 2003

quote:
What about potty breaks? And so on... ???

What potty breaks??? As a person who went on the Bremerton cache machine, I can assure you that these people do not eat or otherwise have any human body functions.

Well, pretty close.

Three months will give you some time to train for this. Start by drinking 32 ounces of coffee and "holding it" for 6 hours while running through the woods. If you can do that, you're ready for the VCM.

Can't wait! ;-)

1.8k · April 12, 2003

quote:
They are a combination of the movies Cannonball Run, and Twister (without the tornados of course).

Yup -- that's the quote I was thinking of. In fact, when we were driving through the smoke after leaving the schoolhouse in Yakima, THe1Nub mentioned to me that he thought we were acting just like storm chasers.

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by travisl:
Yeah, for the most part it's a caravan of vehicles, swooping in on local parks, filling the parking lots of rest areas, and lining up on the shoulder of a road.

Thanks for the vivid and amusing description. Sounds a lot like a one-day bird count, except that the targets aren't moving. I could see doing it. My wife said, "Have fun." Didn't see many women in the Yakima photos--they're too smart, I guess!

April 13, 2003

Originally posted by travisl:

If, however, your favorite part of geocaching is getting to go to neat places that you otherwise wouldn't see,...../

Translation: Multicaches and caches above 1/1 -2/2 are not cool places...???

Cool Places? maby

Numbers? Absolutely

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

1.8k · April 13, 2003

Multicaches and 4/4 caches can be cool places, certainly. I was addressing only the experience of a Cache Machine event, not the goal of the event itself.

I think I've said it before, but I'll make it really clear.

Primary goal: Numbers

Secondary goal: Cool places

Subordinate goal: Searching experience

Anything that will interfere with the primary goal (such as multis or 4/4 caches) aren't cache machine fodder. Given the choice in designing a route, I'd prefer to route us through the coolest cache locations and most scenic drives, subordinate to the goal of getting as many caches as possible.

We've only done one multi in the two Cache Machines, and that's because Robber's Roost (in Ellensburg) contained a code number to access another cache later that day, plus it was only a two waypoint multi, with assurances from the cache owner that the second/final waypoint was not far from our route.

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
My wife said, "Have fun." Didn't see many women in the Yakima photos--they're too smart, I guess!

There were half a dozen or so, including my fiancee.

Um, what are you trying to say about those women who did attend?

Ron/yumitori

April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by yumitori:

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
My wife said, "Have fun." Didn't see many women in the Yakima photos--they're too smart, I guess!

There were half a dozen or so, including my fiancee.

Um, what are you trying to say about those women who _did_ attend?

Nothing, really.

"When the Oakies left Oklahoma and moved to California, it raised the I.Q. of both states." -Will Rogers

April 15, 2003

I'm a woman cacher and have 550 finds as of today.

In response to the "Woman being too smart to be at the Cache Machine"... I was there and had a blast! Does that make me stupid. Actually, I think my husband likes me caching. It keeps me out of the malls and spending all his money! At least some of the times. I like shopping too!

As far as the people who want to rag about Cache Machines. Why don't you all start your own thread and you can complain together?

That way you can save space for those of us who are looking forward to the upcoming event to discuss it!

Wienerdog

April 22, 2003

Just made our reservations at the Strathmore so barring any unforseen disasters we are going to be there. Looking forward to it with great anticipation .

I've gone to look for myself, if I should return before I get back, please keep me here.

April 27, 2003

It has been said that geocaching is a lot less harmful than a busload of school kids getting dumped out a park for the afternoon. Typically, we hunt a given geocache in very small numbers over a period of weeks and months. Our impact is minimal. Now, tell me, how are representatives of the sport going to use this analogy in a discussion with a land manager who has gotten wind of ‘cache machines’? How many park rangers have to see a dozen cars pull up and unload four times as many geocachers, before they call ‘foul’ on our sport? How long will it be before cache-machine type events make the task of advocacy difficult or impossible?

April 27, 2003

Having gone two both events, I still believe they have very little impact on the environment. And as far as giving geocaching a "bad name", if there is a Park Ranger that does not approve of our sport, I'd say he/she made up there mind long before the birth of the cache machine. I will admit, the name of the event, (cache machine) does put a picture in ones mind of a herd of Buffalos running through a field of tulips. In my opinion, this weekends CITO events that took place nation wide, should clearly prove that geocachers are responsible users of our public lands.

slinger91 is a Weapon of Mass Consumption. (hoping to get a googlism here)

1.8k · April 27, 2003

Look up. Above this message Oregone wrote:

quote:
Most of the caches in Bremerton and Yakima were totally easy and not located in sensitive areas. In fact, if i had to stereotype and generalize, i'd say that every cache we found at both CMs involved walking about 300 feet over gravel and park-grass

And I wrote:

quote:
if anyone knows that we might be trampling in sensitive areas, I strongly encourage you to let me know and I'll remove that cache from the route.

I plan to add this statement to the VCM FAQ as well.

Except for it's multi-cache aspect, your ''Seth's Clues'' cache would be a typical cache that I'd put on a cache machine hunt. I don't see that any environmental harm would come to that park by having 30 people marching down its trails at once, or even going cross country across the grass.

Seth, if we ever come across one of your caches in future cache machine trips, be sure and let me know if you don't want us hunting it.

Of the 37 caches on the BCM and the 68 caches on the YCM, I can name one (that's less than 1 percent) where the cache machine made a noticable negative environmental impact. The salal there grows back really fast, and it was still less of an impact than the folks who left their used condoms laying around.

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 27, 2003

Whatever. I'm concerned about the precedent that these events set, not the ones that have already happened. I don't really expect anyone to heed my warning or share my concern. I'll just sleep better knowing that I've put it out there.

April 27, 2003

i know i'm setting myself up for a differing opinion or two here, but i don't think that the concept of CMs are any more against the spirit of geocaching than virts, locationless, last-minute event caches, et.al. It would be totally cool if geocaching was limited to hiding a box in the woods, and i kinda wish it still was just that.

Heck, from a sociological point of view, you could almost argue that CMs are an ironic response to those things.

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:
I'm concerned about the precedent that these events set, not the ones that have already happened. I don't really expect anyone to heed my warning or share my concern.

I'm heeding and sharing, Seth!. If and when the CM comes to Beaverton, Oregon (i've heard rumors), then i'll be the first to email travisl about the ones that should be off-limits.

But until then, i gotta go with my experience on this one and say that CMs are okay. Not once in Yakima did i think that we were doing any environmental harm as a group. i DID feel a little weird about one or two of them in Bremerton though, to be honest with you--but no more than on a solo hunt in other places i've found caches. Not that the following is a valid justification, but most of those weird feelings were kind of assuaged by picking up some beer cans on my way out (and i thought gresham was trashed!).

What are there, like 100 or so planned for Victoria? Seth!, meet me at the rooftop volleyball court at the Strathmore the friday afternoon before and we'll go knock off twenty of them after knocking off a couple of Molson's. Or whatever it is they drink up there. Because there's no way i'm waking up at 4am--record or not.

2.8k · April 27, 2003

quote:
Oregone wrote: no way i'm waking up at 4am--record or not.

Now I am confused. I got the impression that 4am was about the time you finally called it a night! So, just stay up. Besides it's Canadian time, so it won't seem nearly as early

April 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by travisl:

Primary goal: Numbers

Since the primary goal is numbers, why don't you plant hundreds of easy to find micros every 528 feet in some area the day before the event, then all go trooping around finding them? It would minimize gas consumption, you could jog from cache to cache in about a minute, and the time to find micros doesn't matter because the cache itself is found once and then just passed from particpant to participant, so you could probably do one cache every two minutes (call it 30 caches an hour). In a 12 hour day you could do 360. If you do it on a very long daylight day (or even just mark the cache locations with blinking LED's) you could go for much longer. If you could sustain a rate of 30 caches an hour for 24 hours, you'd immediately vault every participant to the top of the rankings.

600 film cans can't be that hard to hide. Film cans are free (just ask for them at a photofinisher). You could probably write a program to submit the cache listings. With the cooperation of one of the admins, you could get all 600 approved and be on your way.

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Yes, I'm serious. If numbers are the primary goal, I think this is the way to go about it. The only problem I see is that you need a good place to do it. Two possibilities occur to me: 1) do it in a city, and just put a micro at every street corner (and maybe halfway between the corners). Then you just jog up and down the street grid. (2) Find some helpful farmer. I'm a little foggy this morning so my math might be off, but if you close pack the caches in a hex pattern, it works out to one cache for every five acres. So a 3000 acre farm would be big enough.

One problem - if you do it all on foot, and assuming 528 feet between caches, you'd need to travel 600*528/5280 = 60 miles. That's a long way to walk, or even bike.

So I propose the following - you get N participants. Each one shows up in the morning, and immediately goes and finds 600/N caches. Then they bring the cache back to a central spot, and everyone signs the logs. Then everyone goes out, rehides the caches, and you're done. This way, you don't need to move 600 people 60 miles. Done this way, you could probably do 600 caches in a couple of hours.

Actually, now that I think of it, this is a great idea. Say you can round up 100 participants. Before the event, each participant hides, say, 20 film can micros and gets them approved. The evening before the event, everyone goes and finds someone else's 20 micros, collecting them as they go. On the morning of the event, everyone converges, you have a mass signing of logbooks, and then everyone replaces the 20 micros they found. Done this way, 100 participants each would get 2000 finds.

Who's up for this?

April 28, 2003

quote:
I'm heeding and sharing, Seth!. If and when the CM comes to Beaverton, Oregon (i've heard rumors), then i'll be the first to email travisl about the ones that should be off-limits.

We've already claimed the rights to BCM (Beaverton Cache Machine). With the sudden explosion of upcoming event caches, and gatherings, we've been at a loss for a date. More to come.

"And then Trogdor smote the Kerrek, and all was laid to burnination."

April 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:
Who's up for this?

I love it!

As for the potential damage from CMs, take reasonable precautions and pay attention to the perception of these events by land managers and the public. Perhaps a good thing to do would be to pick up trash while waiting to sign the log.

April 28, 2003

Seth...I think you neeeed a hug!

Why must there be more P.M.S. here, than in my own home?

I have no idea why reasonable people all of the sudden judge what other reasonable people are doing when it is something that has to be approved to do in the first place. Doesn't that seem unreasonable? If anyone was to say whether the cache machines were too impactual, wouldn't that be an admin decision?

I think the constructive views have been laid before all of us. From what I have read (and heard) these cache machines are a very fun event. I have not attended these and probably won't, but that is my personal choice. As far as the impact to the environment goes it has already been made evident that all or most of the attendees are respectful of where the cache is placed and how their being there can be harmful to the scenery.

BTW: bigeddy, I think your idea is a great solution to a small problem

Take time out of your day to love yourself.

1.8k · April 28, 2003

quote:
why don't you plant {600} easy to find micros every 528 feet in some area the day before the event? ... No, I'm not being sarcastic. Yes, I'm serious.

I'll respond seriously, and non-sarcastically as well.

1) If I hide them, I don't get to claim them as finds.

2) The only other problem I'd see with this would be getting them approved. 600 new caches in a 4.7 square mile area would probably raise a red flag somewhere along the line. This would be in violation of the cache listing requirement that reads ''Cache Saturation ... the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area. On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide 10 caches because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, create a multicache. Why hide two caches when one will do?''

I agree with the cache saturation guidelines in most cases. While a cache farm might be fun for a cache machine group, it might be dreadfully dull for subsequent searchers.

(''Cache farm''... I like that. I think I just coined a new term, which I'd better arbitrarily define here. Cache farm: an area with a high concentration of caches, usually more than 5 in a one mile radius. Downtown Victoria is a cache farm. By this definition, Game Farm Park Cache is also at the center of a cache farm.)

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by travisl:

1) If I hide them, I don't get to claim them as finds.

2) The only other problem I'd see with this would be getting them approved. 600 new caches in a 4.7 square mile area would probably raise a red flag somewhere along the line. This would be in violation of the cache listing requirement that reads ''Cache Saturation ... the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area. On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide 10 caches because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, create a multicache. Why hide two caches when one will do?''

I agree with the cache saturation guidelines in most cases. While a cache farm might be fun for a cache machine group, it might be dreadfully dull for subsequent searchers.

(''Cache farm''... I like that. I think I just coined a new term, which I'd better arbitrarily define here. Cache farm: an area with a high concentration of caches, usually more than 5 in a one mile radius. Downtown Victoria is a cache farm. By this definition, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=5216 is also at the center of a cache farm.)

_WWJD? JW RTFM._

1. If you hide them, you don't get to find them. First, this is just a convention - if find count is really what you're aiming for, why not just ignore the convention and log your own caches? Second, you can avoid this problem by having each participant hide some of the caches. If there are 100 participants, each one can log 99% of the caches.

2. Cache saturation - this is easily solved by having each particpant hide their share of the caches, then bring the caches to the central location so that people can log them. Sure, if you do this, you don't actually have people visiting the cache locations, but the goal is find count, not cool locations. The real trick here is that the 600 or 1000 caches can be distributed over an area 100's or even 1000's of miles across - it doesn't matter because all the caches are transported to the central location to be mass logged.

3. I don't see why a cache farm would be fun for a CM group but dreadfully boring for subsequent searchers. For one thing, subsequent searchers would probably actually visit the cache locations as opposed to simply having folks bring the caches to a central location to be logged.

In any case, I'm leaning away from the 'cache farm' idea, since it's possible to have all the caches brought to a central location to be group logged. That avoids lots of travel time, the time spent finding/rehiding the cache, opening the cache container - all of which just slow things down. I advocate making each particpant use a stamp to make a log entry - that way you can probably make your mark (including date) in perhaps ten log books per minute. That's 600 caches per hour! Just sit everyone down in an auditorium, and pass the logbooks down each row, back and forth. Even if you slow it down to a leisurely 4 caches per minute, you're still hitting 240 caches an hour, and in a bit more than 4 hours (before you need to even take a bathroom break) you could log 1000 caches. In one day, it's perfectly possible to tag, say, 3000 caches. This would move virtually every participant to the head of the rankings in one 24 hour period.

As I see it (and as you've stated) the goal of CM's is to bag the maximum number of finds possible. Things like actually traveling to the cache location, finding the cache, etc. are just hurdles to be overcome. The trick is to ruthlessly eliminate each of these hurdles and maximize the efficiency of the process.

My plan is to collect the log books for all 35 of the caches I've hidden and bring them to the next WSGA meeting. If everyone else does the same, we can probably boost the find count of every WSGA member up over 500 in one evening, and we won't even have to hide any caches to do it. We'll just use the existing caches! I love it!

Are people up for this? I'm game!

April 28, 2003

Big Eddy: "Pay attention to the perception of these events by land managers..."

That was my point. That would imply NOT HAVING this type of event.

TravisL: "I agree with the cache saturation guidelines in most cases."

It's a moot point if you just archive the caches immediately after the event. I mean, who cares about geocachers that don't attend?

oregone: "...i don't think that the concept of CMs are any more against the spirit of geocaching than virts, locationless, last-minute event caches, et.al."

And those have contributed SO MUCH to the quality of our sport. <barfing emoticon>

oregone again: "Seth!, meet me at the rooftop volleyball court at the Strathmore..."

As much as I'd love to see you--or many other geocachers--you won't see me at this or any CM.

Kodak's4: "Done this way, 100 participants each would get 2000 finds."

I'm sure most people are thinking that this proposal is crazy. But that's precisely the direction CM's lead us. It's called a Pandora's Box. Good luck with that.

1.8k · April 28, 2003

Kodak's4 wrote:

quote:
If you hide them, you don't get to find them. First, this is just a convention - if find count is really what you're aiming for, why not just ignore the convention and log your own caches

Ahh... there you've hit the nail on the head. A find is whatever the finder says is a find, subordinate to the owner of the cache. It's a personal choice that way. While I would choose to log Cache Machine finds as finds, when you bring your 35 log books to the next WSGA meeting, I'd be happy to log them, but I'll count them as notes until I get out to the area of the cache and find their containers. As I said above, visiting cool places is another, secondary goal of Cache Machine events. While it would increase my numbers, I'd prefer to bag the caches out in the field. Please do bring them, though, because I do enjoy signing log books and seeing what others have written. Others may want to log them as finds, and if you have no problem with that, neither do I. I think that's a great idea, and perhaps you could incorporate it into the agenda. I'm sure others would also be interested in seeing what has been written in the log books. I hope the next meeting is close enough for me to attend.

(I'm taking you at your word that you are still serious and not being sarcastic here. I'm not being sarcastic either -- still serious.)

Seth: last night, you wrote ''Whatever.'' I thought you were done with this thread. I'm glad to see you're still interested.

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:
It has been said that geocaching is a lot less harmful than a busload of school kids getting dumped out a park for the afternoon. Typically, we hunt a given geocache in very small numbers over a period of weeks and months. Our impact is minimal. Now, tell me, how are representatives of the sport going to use this analogy in a discussion with a land manager who has gotten wind of ‘cache machines’? How many park rangers have to see a dozen cars pull up and unload four times as many geocachers, before they call ‘foul’ on our sport? How long will it be before cache-machine type events make the task of advocacy difficult or impossible?

http://www.geocachingwa.org

This drives home the advantages of the 'bring all the caches/logs to a central location' plan I advocate. Not only does it avoid needless travel, it neatly avoids environmental impact entirely - because only one person need visit the cache site!

Better and better!

Let's give it a try. I've hidden 32 caches. I'll bring the log books to the next WSGA meeting. Everyone else who wants to run up their find count, bring the logbooks to your caches (other folks, too, if they'll give you permission to grab the logbook for one day!) and we'll all sit down and log them till our brains drop out. My 32 caches include some really hard ones that very few people have logged finds - including at least one five star multi-micro. So it will be a big relief to lots of folks to get a chance to log it so quickly and easily. If even just Seattle Seekers and Eraseek bring the logbooks for their caches, we'll have a hundred caches right there. Travis, you've got 18 hides - that puts us close to 120. If someone can persuade Fledermaus, we're up to 160. Surely we can get another 40 caches in dribs and drabs, which would bring it up to a nice round 200 caches. If we're organized, everyone can log them in an hours, tops.

One question - do you think we need the logbooks from the caches, or can we use proxy logbooks which are later placed in the cache along with the regular log? Because if we decide to use proxy logbooks, we can really go to town, and include caches that are pretty inaccessible. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and I'd personally say that you need to use the actual logbook from the cache. Call me stodgy, yes. But we have to have standards, or the whole thing becomes pointless.

Come on! The more, the merrier. Bring those logbooks!

April 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by travisl:
While I would choose to log Cache Machine finds as finds, when you bring your 35 log books to the next WSGA meeting, I'd be happy to log them, but I'll count them as notes until I get out to the area of the cache and find their containers.

That's interesting. Why insist on visiting the area of the cache and on finding the container? After all, if you have a CM that runs for 16 hours and finds 100 caches (which is apparently the rough target for the VCM) then you have about 10 minutes for each cache location, INCLUDING the travel time from cache to cache. From what I've read about the CM's, the typical sequence of events for a find is roughly: 1) drive to the next cache 2) park 3) greet the cachers leaving for the next cache 4) jog over to the crowd of cachers all signing the log book and get in line 5) sign the log book. 6) head back to the car, greet the arriving cachers. It doesn't sound to me like visiting the location figures prominently in this process, which is why I first suggested a cache farm, and then suggested abandoning the whole 'site visit' thing altogether. Would it be enough if I just brought a photo of the site to the meeting? Surely you'd get as much from the photo as you'd get standing around with a group waiting for your chance to sign the log. Maybe more, because we eliminate the travel time and streamline the log signing and so there would probably be something like 8 minutes to view the photos of each location.

And why insist on not only visiting the site, but on finding the container as well? If you have 50 people in a CM, surely only one person finds the cache, and the other 49 just sign the log book, right? I just don't see any difference between that and having a mass log signing in a different location after one person has found the cache, extracted the log, and gone to the central location. In both cases, one person found the cache, and then some huge number of people came along and signed the log. With a regular CM, it's not like all 50 people (or however many there are) all arrive at the site, divvy up the space to be searched, and then search, right? You can do that with 3 people, or even 6, but it's a non-starter with 50 because by the time the 50th person arrives, the first folks have found the cache, signed the log, and left for the next cache already. The 3 people in the lead find all the caches, and the other 47 just run along and sign the logs. The last one out rehides the cache and rushes off to the next cache.

In terms of actually participating in finding the cache, there's really no difference at all between the CM and what I propose - centralized logging. So why the insistence on visiting the site later, and finding the cache later?

quote:
As I said above, visiting cool places is another, secondary goal of Cache Machine events. While it would increase my numbers, I'd prefer to bag the caches out in the field.

Why? I just can't believe that if you're tagging 100 caches in a sixteen hour day, you're going to get from one cache to another in less than five minutes average. And that leaves 3 minutes to walk to the cache, sign the log, and walk back; that three minutes is the totality of the 'out in the field' experience. If you weigh the environmental impact against the benefits of a site visit, it seems to me like we'd be better off doing centralized logging.

quote:
Please do bring them, though, because I do enjoy signing log books and seeing what others have written.

See? That's one way centralized logging is BETTER than a regular CM. In a regular CM, you're out in the field, and I can't believe anyone has time to do more than write "<date> I was here, TNLN, thanks! - <name>" in the log, and surely no time to go reading the logbooks - not with a pile of people waiting to sign and move on. With centralized logging, you could have people go through the logbooks and read the good parts aloud, and in an auditorium with a sound system, people would be getting that 'read the logbook' experience while they were busy stamping one log every ten seconds - they wouldn't even have to slow down!

One problem with centralized logging is that you must be present at the central location to log. It occurs to me now that that's really not neccessary - nothing is lost by having the people signing geographically distributed. You could have, say, 100 locations. At each location, you'd gather together roughly 1/100th of the participants, and 1/100th (more or less) of the logbooks. You can either allow proxy logging, or you could just assemble each parcel of logbooks and fedex them around, and give all 100 sites a chance to log. I don't see much difference (in a mass log signing, as with a regular CM, no one has time to read the logs anyway) so I'd suggest the simplest, cheapest thing to do is allow proxy signing of logs. Heck, you could have a nationwide CM with hundreds of logging sites, each of which has tens of cachers and hundreds of logs. No reason why we can't exchange proxy logs with folks in PA, or NY, or even in Europe, after all. This would be a sort of Ultimate cache machine - everyone involved would probably get thousands and thousands of finds on caches hidden all over the planet.

I know you think that deep underneath I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. I say, if we're going to embrace CM's, let's really embrace the whole idea, and not do a half-baked job of it. Everyone agrees that CM's are about find count. Why settle for a mere 100 finds when the Ultimate Worldwide Cache Machine could easily land everyone involved 5000 finds overnight? The Ultimate Cache Machine concept has ALL the benefits of the regular CM events, with NONE of the environmental impact, none of the wear and tear, none of the gas consumed. It would get geocachers together in great numbers, in a great social/rally type environment, which would surely be a great deal of fun.

If you like CM's, I can't believe you can't see your way clear to embracing the Ultimate Cache Machine.

I believe we can pull off a NW region UCM with far less effort than it would take to all go up to the VCM. People could participate without traveling, so a lot more folks would get to play. As far as I can see, there's no downside at all. If the NWUCM works as proof of concept, we can try for a worldwide one after.

Let's do it!

[This message was edited by Kodak's4 on April 28, 2003 at 04:43 PM.]

1.8k · April 28, 2003

I'd only be interested in seeing the actual log books. There's nothing to read in proxy books.

If I make it to the meeting, and if there's time set aside on the agenda for a logbook reading exchange, I'll temporarily archive a few of my caches and bring the log books. There's some good reading in there.

I won't, however, allow any one to claim finds for them. Part of the 'find' for my caches is getting out to that area. Of course, this is where the rabid anti-Cache Machine folks might be confused, because to them, logging a find on a cache that their caching partner found is the same as logging an logbook exchange. It's black and white -- either you found the cache, or you didn't (someone else did).

To me, it's more of a continuum:

1) Finding it solo.

2) Sole caching partner finds it with you nearby

3) One person of a group of x people finds it with you near by (where x is a finite number)

4) Solo caching partner finds it while you wait in the car

5) One person of a group of x people finds it while you wait in the car (where x is a finite number)

6) Someone brings you the log book to a cache a long distance off.

7) You get to the area (solo or with a group), but nobody finds it

8) You think about visiting the cache

9) You read the cache page only.

My personal choice, for finding and for allowing finds on my caches, is to draw the line at number 3 above. For 4-6, it'd get a note. For 7, it'd get a not found. For 8 or 9, no log.

Your personal choice may vary. Kodak's4 would log a find at level 6. Seth would log a find only at level 1 (to avoid opening that Pandora's box). As I've said numerous times, if a cache owner doesn't want the cache machine hunting their cache for personal, environmental, or logistical reasons, let me know. One cache owner has already let me know that they'd like future cache machine groups to log finds only with tally marks to avoid filling the log book. OK by me.

Which brings up another question -- when my family and I hunted Seth's Clues (which my family thoroughly enjoyed), I let my daughter find most of the waypoints, and my wife found the final cache. As the cache owner, should Seth have made me log it only as a note? Should he do the same for all of the other families who have hunted it together? I suspect that he'll allow them all to remain as finds, and that's OK, because he's a pretty reasonable guy, who understands that the stringent definition of 'find' that he places on himself doesn't have to apply to everyone else.

WWJD? JW RTFM.

1.8k · April 28, 2003

Regarding your ''Ultimate Worldwide Cache Machine'' idea -- it already exists, except that the log book is electronic, and exists on each cache page at Geocaching.com.

Feel free to log all the finds you want if you feel that you're entitled to them by merely viewing the web page for the cache (my level 9 above). I'm fairly certain that most cache owners (myself included) would require a bit more from you, though.

quote:
Surely you'd get as much from the photo as you'd get standing around with a group waiting for your chance to sign the log. Maybe more, because we eliminate the travel time and streamline the log signing and so there would probably be something like 8 minutes to view the photos of each location.

Have you ever been out to the coast, sat in the sand for an hour, and watched the sun set? Have you ever been on your way home from work, and as you're driving down the freeway, seen the sunset? Have you ever seen a photograph of the sunset?

Again, we're talking about a continuum. You didn't come on the Yakima Cache Machine, so you'll have to take my word for it, but driving through and quickly walking through the Yakima Canyon is far superior to seeing photos of it. It's really the most gorgeous stretch of road I've seen in the state. Nor does it compare, I'm sure, to savoring it for hours. But if not for the Yakima Cache Machine, I'd not have done any of these three.

If you think they're equivalent (although I question your seriousness at this point), this link should satisfy your future need to actually get out and visit caches, except that if you want a smilie, you'll have to convince the cache owner to let your 'found' log stay.

WWJD? JW RTFM.

April 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by travisl:
I won't, however, allow any one to claim finds for them. Part of the 'find' for my caches is getting out to that area. Of course, this is where the rabid anti-Cache Machine folks might be confused, because to them, logging a find on a cache that their caching partner found is the same as logging an logbook exchange. It's black and white -- either you found the cache, or you didn't (someone else did).

To me, it's more of a continuum:

1) Finding it solo.

2) Sole caching partner finds it with you nearby

3) One person of a group of x people finds it with you near by (where x is a finite number)

4) Solo caching partner finds it while you wait in the car

5) One person of a group of x people finds it while you wait in the car (where x is a finite number)

6) Someone brings you the log book to a cache a long distance off.

7) You get to the area (solo or with a group), but nobody finds it

8) You think about visiting the cache

9) You read the cache page only.

My personal choice, for finding and for allowing finds on my caches, is to draw the line at number 3 above. For 4-6, it'd get a note. For 7, it'd get a not found. For 8 or 9, no log.

I don't agree with that at all. I don't believe for an instant that everyone who participates in the CM is present at the site when the cache is found. I expect (and I'd be very, VERY surprised if I was wrong) that the first few folks on site find the cache, and by the time the bulk of the people arrive, the cache has already been found. 'In a car driving to the cache site' is exactly equivlent to 'waiting in the car', and that means that a CM log is more like a 4 or 5 for everyone except the front runners. Unless you're specifically doing a roll call to make sure everyone is present before the hunt starts, I can not believe that everyone who signs the log is present when the cache is found. I believe that the majority are still in their cars, driving to the cache, or parking.

That's why I see centralized logging as equivalent to a regular CM - you've participated in finding the cache to exactly the same degree, and it allows MUCH bigger find counts. And, after all, the primary goal is find count.

April 28, 2003

Whoops, wrong button.

[This message was edited by Kodak's4 on April 28, 2003 at 05:31 PM.]

April 28, 2003

Whoops, wrong button.

Victoria Cache Machine

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment