All 81 DTs in shortest time

[+Oxford Stone]

Filling that DT grid takes a lot of time and effort. Rare combinations; puzzles to solve; inflatable kayaks to blow up... my first loop took just under 3 years (culminating in a kayak trip), another 3 to the next (100-mile drive with stepladder in small car)...

 

Has anyone ever devised a trail, or a group of caches in a reasonably small area, of all 81 combinations? Doable in a day or two? I'm picturing all the low ones in an urban area (but not necessarily) then striking out into the countryside for some high Ts up trees or only accessible by boat.

[+DerDiedler]

There is a Project in Germany, containing all D/T combinations.

 

And this ones are also covering the entire Matrix, also Germany. #1 is GC7CYKB

Edited January 24, 2019 by DerDiedler

[+Isonzo Karst]

I believe there's a full set of ratings in the CoExist group, central Florida, in the Ocala National Forest (a T 1?,hmmm ).  There's a fair amount of grid candy in this. 

T rating on most of these is honestly between 2.5 and 3.5 , a few go higher; a couple, when new were at 4.5. D ratings without the hints ~ 2 -3,  much lower with.  With a lot of stamina, and some careful mapping, I think these could be done in 2 days. Easier with two cars, to through walk from one side  to the other of the figure on the north end.  Some few of these can be legally accessed with ATV, some are near the forest roads, mostly driveable sans 4x. Most are hiking caches.  They look easier than they are. A lot of this is extremely dense scrub.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=29.0672&lng=-81.77212#?ll=29.0672,-81.77212&z=14

Edited January 24, 2019 by Isonzo Karst

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

There is a Project in Germany, containing all D/T combinations.

There are several such "projects" in Germany. I know people who have "completed" one in a single day. I put "completed" in quotes because I know that some "creative logging" was involved (like splitting the group, and each subgroup signs for everyone).

My own experience is limited to an incomplete project of this kind, where the owner gave up after about 50 of 81 caches. In these 50, the D/T ratings were often way off a realistic assessment. E.g., T3 was sometimes on the ground right by the path, and sometimes 4m up in a tree without branches below the cache.

[+DerDiedler]

upsidaisy, it just came to my knowledge that Austria isn´t in Germany

I Was sloppy there, got baited by the language without looking up the map.

[+rosebud55112]

There is a set of caches in South Dakota which has all 81 D/T combinations, but I've heard from some people that some of those ratings are not as "precise" as they should be.  I haven't tried them out, so not speaking from personal experience.

[+MartyBartfast]

A bit closer to home (for both me and the OP) :  https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&kw=Statsfield&c=11

I haven't done any so can't vouch for the accuracy of the ratings, or how long it would realistically take to do them.

 

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

There's a fair amount of grid candy in this. 

Given that the OP wants to complete the grid "in a  day or two", I get the impression that "soft" ratings are perfectly fine. It's about the statistics.

 

After all, a real D4 can take "multiple trips" even with the current descriptions of difficulty and terrain ratings. And a real T4 used to be described as more than 10 miles of hiking, and could require an overnight stay.

[+MartyBartfast]

28 minutes ago, niraD said:

I get the impression that "soft" ratings are perfectly fine

 

I agree that soft ratings crop up frequently, and I expect some of these grid trails have soft ratings too, but it should be possible to devise 81 caches where:

Higher D   ratings are achieved via a combination of puzzles with varying difficulties, and some well camoflaged containers.

Higher T  ratings are achieved via a combination of tree climbs all in a single wood/forest, or perhaps a trail along a waterway requiring a combination of wading/swimming/boating.

 

 

 

[+K13]

Look along the river in Dallas. There is a series of caches there to fit your bill, all Multis, IIRC.

I've not attempted any of them, so I can't testify as to the D/T softness.

[+Isonzo Karst]

ratings, D  is just hard to know or say -  puzzles, especially - easy if you see the way in, impossible if you don't.  I've modestly complained about terrain ratings lately in my logs, in both directions; caches rated 1.5 that were clearly outside the distance (.05 miles one way) and on lumpy hiking trails, and conversely, caches rated 3.5 - 5 T where I'd drop a full point from that rating, and on some, more than a full point. Granted, on Terrain, I'd rather over rate than under rate. 

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I agree that soft ratings crop up frequently, and I expect some of these grid trails have soft ratings too, but it should be possible to devise 81 caches where:

Higher D   ratings are achieved via a combination of puzzles with varying difficulties, and some well camoflaged containers.

Higher T  ratings are achieved via a combination of tree climbs all in a single wood/forest, or perhaps a trail along a waterway requiring a combination of wading/swimming/boating.

 

But does it really matter, when the stated goal is "all  81 combinations... in a day or two"?

 

This is a couple steps removed from the primary purpose of difficulty and terrain ratings. Statistics are what matters now. The tail is wagging the dog.

[+thebruce0]

It really depends on the style of hides. I agree:

 

30 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

it should be possible to devise 81 caches where:

Higher D   ratings are achieved via a combination of puzzles with varying difficulties, and some well camoflaged containers.

Higher T  ratings are achieved via a combination of tree climbs all in a single wood/forest, or perhaps a trail along a waterway requiring a combination of wading/swimming/boating.

 

We have at least one or two series in Ontario like that. There is a new 81 cube series where it appears that the Ds and Ts are indeed accurate. The high D puzzles are nuts, and many of the high T's are most likely paddle caches.

I'm slowly working on increase my treeclimb trail with the aim of getting all 81 DTs active. And that would be very different from the aforementioned 81 cube. Context matters.

 

But yeah, soft ratings just to achieve the 81 grid are questionable. But, if they're published then they're statistically legit. Just not necessarily something to brag about if completing it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

D/T is not an exact science, especially in a place like Florida where wet season vs dry season can be a difference of 5 feet of water vs bone dry. But some people don't even try.

 

Sooner or later someone is going to start publishing nothing but PnGs rated 5/5.

[+Oxford Stone]

Thanks, lots of useful answers! Might have to get to one of these one day.

 

My last interesting combo was a D3.5T5 - brief but tough puzzle then a cache on a girder under a bridge over a river, high enough to necessitate standing (or using a stick and throwing back...) from a rubber dinghy. Absolutely deserved its rating. 

[+captnemo]

The Siberian Matrix in California will get it for you.  Doing it in one day maybe very hard to do, 3 to 4 days should be possible.  Also you would only have to do those that you haven't already done.

[+Vooruit!]

Currently, there are 2 in the Netherlands. A third trail has been archived just last year. Germany also has more than one I think.

[+on4bam]

There's a geo art in Belgium with all 81 D/T combinations.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 minutes ago, on4bam said:

There's a geo art in Belgium with all 81 D/T combinations.

 

There just something that feels backward to me for a series/geoart created to compete a challenge *after* the challenge already exists.  I suppose it's possible that all the D/T combinations are accurate but I remain skeptical when a bunch of caches created to satisfy a challenge are placed in a relatively small area that the choice of the D and T ratings are an accurate representation of what it takes to find them. 

[+DerDiedler]

28 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

but I remain skeptical when a bunch of caches created to satisfy a challenge are placed in a relatively small area that the choice of the D and T ratings are an accurate representation of what it takes to find them. 

I have the same feeling. And not just a feeling. I once did a series repesenting all (or most) Dx/T5 combinations. The raitings were completely random, the D5/T5 was the easiest one.

 

I think, for most of the people who put up or visit series like that, it´s more about having all combinations in it, then haveing accurat ratings.

[+thebruce0]

Another reason why 'bragging rights' are totally subjective. Just like one person's 100 in a day can be so much more impressive than another's 900.  For an 81 grid, sure you could find a basic series where the DTs don't really reflect the work required, but how proud would you be of saying you did a full fizzy in a day when you point to that series? If it's just numbers, probably. Otherwise, if you really want to challenge yourself, you'd probably go and search for an 81 series where the DTs are accurate.

In the end it's just numbers to compare, but at least you can say to yourself you actually found all 81 DTs in a day that you felt were sufficiently accurate to their ratings (even though that can be quite subjective too )

[+Oxford Stone]

As per the 2nd paragraph of my original post, I'd love to do a series where the DT ratings have been properly thought out, making for an adventure that gets progressively harder. 

[+thebruce0]

[+humboldt flier]

On 1/31/2019 at 5:40 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

There just something that feels backward to me for a series/geoart created to compete a challenge *after* the challenge already exists.  I suppose it's possible that all the D/T combinations are accurate but I remain skeptical when a bunch of caches created to satisfy a challenge are placed in a relatively small area that the choice of the D and T ratings are an accurate representation of what it takes to find them. 

Agreed:

     A number of years ago some of these "quickie grid fillers" popped up ..... they were in actuality 1 X 1's with bogus ratings.  

 

     Many challenge owners  instituted date restrictions on their Fizzy Challenges in order to "keep it real".

[+Oxford Stone]

On 2/1/2019 at 3:08 PM, thebruce0 said:

Interesting, the cache in the series you highlight has had only one find since it was hidden 9 moths ago! Somewhere remote?

[+DerDiedler]

5 minutes ago, Oxford Stone said:

Somewhere remote?

South Canada, between Lake Ontario and Lake Huron.

So I´d say no, not remote.

[+thebruce0]

Depends what you mean by remote. Central Ontario is filled with conservation areas, wilderness and lakes.  They could be off hiking trails or require watercraft to get to.  I wouldn't say remote as in multi-day camping trip to get to... but those are rare.  I only highlighted the top one to provide a GC for the series with the image without obstructing the geoart

[+Harry Dolphin]

Okay.  I've found 13 T5 caches.  Two were on an island, but they lowered the reservoir to fix the dam, so I walked over.  Driving 240 miles to visit a number of EarthCache sites?  Okay, maybe.  13 miles by foot, bus, subway?  Nope.  Kayaking cache in someone's back yard?  Went to their event, and walked over.  Kayaking cache?  Trudged through the swamp, sat on a log floating in the river?  Close, I guess.  Four mile hike with 4000' of climb?  YUP!  Probably the only one that was T5 for me.   

[+humboldt flier]

13 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Okay.  I've found 13 T5 caches.  Two were on an island, but they lowered the reservoir to fix the dam, so I walked over.  Driving 240 miles to visit a number of EarthCache sites?  Okay, maybe.  13 miles by foot, bus, subway?  Nope.  Kayaking cache in someone's back yard?  Went to their event, and walked over.  Kayaking cache?  Trudged through the swamp, sat on a log floating in the river?  Close, I guess.  Four mile hike with 4000' of climb?  YUP!  Probably the only one that was T5 for me.   

 

Wellllllll Terrain ratings are indeed "relative".  

 

         To those in the mountains a particular hike may be a level 3 or 4 or 5.     Buuuutttt take a flatlander like my caching buddy from Chicago-Land or myself from sea level in the  Coastal Redwoods Region and it is a very different story.   

 

      Very soon into the hike and we are sucking air to beat the band and declaring the terrain rating to be more like a 12 - 15. (assuming we can catch enough air to make the comment LOL).

 

Returning thread to the original intent at this time

 

          

[+humboldt flier]

BTW:   have you noticed the DT ratings for the year 2000 caches in the west.   1 X 1 

[+humboldt flier]

1 minute ago, humboldt flier said:

BTW:   have you noticed the DT ratings for the year 2000 caches in the west.   1 X 1 

 

Then of course there is GCD   >>>> rated at 2 X 3.5    a week after we did it a gentleman had a fatal heart attack on that "gentle walk".   May he rest in peace.

[+hzoi]

21 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

BTW:   have you noticed the DT ratings for the year 2000 caches in the west.   1 X 1 

 

That used to be the default, I recall.  I wasn't caching in 2000 and don't know if the original listings even had ratings - perhaps these were system-applied later and just never changed by the CO?

[+Isonzo Karst]

I can't speak to the very earliest listings, but an early system to email the site with new cache  made mention of D/T  ratings 1 - 5,  asked for coords in WGS84, and a nickname for "the stash".

 

My memory (weak) is that the cache report form I first saw had D/T default of 1/1 and then (now)   1.5 / 1.5.  For a time, there was a default container size Not Chosen.