Highest scoring geocacher

[+The Jester]

10 hours ago, niraD said:

That would still require a determined, sustained effort, of course.

 

If you average 6 mph while cycling, each mile takes 10 minutes of cycling. If there are 10 caches spaced 0.1 mile apart in that mile, and if you spend 5 minutes finding, retrieving, signing, and replacing each cache, then that's 50 minutes of handling the caches. So each hour, you would find 10 caches, and in 10 hours, you would find 100 caches. Plus however much time you spend eating lunch or taking breaks.

 

It's certainly feasible, but it requires focus and a lot of work.

And you have ten miles back to the car.  A method I use is do every other one on the trip out, the others on the trip home - it saves on the knees starting/stopping on the bike so often.

Edited April 4, 2019 by The Jester

[+FiveEyes]

I like the fact that in quite a few ways, geocaching can be what you want it to be.  

If you want it to be about having high numbers, you can do that. Alamogul and others ....and the geocaching power trails of the world...
If you want it to be about solving puzzles, you can do that.  I've noticed a few geocachers  who appear to ONLY log finds on puzzle caches.  
If you prefer hiding geocaches to finding them, you can do that.  I've seen a few geocachers who have just a handful of finds but over a hundred hides!.  Often times I feel that there is more creativity involved in creating hides than in finding caches.  I love creating hides.  
If you like hiking, you can spend all day seeking one or two or a half dozen geocaches. THis is my favorite type of geocaching by far, the hiking caches that require a mile or more hike to get to them.  This is why I got into geocaching.  
If you like urban caching, there are a lot of creative urban plants to look for.  
If you like caching when on vacation, there are a lot of plants at rest stops and popular tourist stops.  

I'm surprising myself -- given that I am more oriented to quality (hiking quality related to the geocache quest) I'm surprised to find myself contemplating going on a Geocaching Power Trail adventure.  I have a feeling I'll be the slowest geocacher ever to work on the power trail.  Some people are finding 600 to 800 caches per day on the power trail with power teams of 4 or more people, and completing the whole power trail in 3 days.   I'll be doing the trail by myself and I plan to do hiking and photography and sightseeing each day as well, so at that rate it could take me 2 or 3 or 6  months to complete the ET Highway or Old Route 66 or other power trail.  Well, we shall see....

 

[+Mudfrog]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:41 AM, CAVinoGal said:

 

While I agree, in general, with the above, I do have to state there IS a clear definition of a "find" - but people interpret it differently.  From the Help Center: "You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

 

I go along with you for sure. The wording is plain as day  to me. There are situations though, when things can get a bit cloudy. For instance, a person finds the logbook at the posted coordinates but the cache container itself is missing. For me, it would be a DNF but according to the part of the guideline you quoted,, it would be fine for me to log the find if I wanted.

 

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 12:49 PM, The_Incredibles_ said:

 

Read my post again. I know because he *told* me. He did a series and logged them all but did not find them all.

 

Yes, I did read that the first time. I shouldn't have included that first sentence in my reply above since your post did state it as fact.

 

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:59 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Unfortunately that's still not definitive.   It does not say that one can *only* log caches online if, and only if, after you have visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.  

 

That said, It should be pretty obvious that if you look for a hidden container, can't find it, then put down a different container, then go "look, there it is", you haven't really found the container that was hidden.   Similarly, if you are looking for a container and only find a piece of of velcro or string that may have been used to tether a container to a location, you haven't yet found the container.

 

These aren't a variety of thoughts on what constitutes a find.  They're lies someone is telling themselves so they can feel justified counting a cache as a find.  

 

Ok, this is one of those times when wording is being interpreted differently. The way I'm reading the guideline, it's stating that a person is supposed to visit the coordinates and sign the log before they post the online "found it" log. 

 

Your last paragraph,,,, I agree!

[+cerberus1]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 11:41 AM, CAVinoGal said:

...While I agree, in general, with the above, I do have to state there IS a clear definition of a "find" - but people interpret it differently.  From the Help Center: "You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook."

 

Agreed.  Clear as day.  

 

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

The wording is plain as day  to me. There are situations though, when things can get a bit cloudy. For instance, a person finds the logbook at the posted coordinates but the cache container itself is missing. For me, it would be a DNF but according to the part of the guideline you quoted,, it would be fine for me to log the find if I wanted.

 

Ok, this is one of those times when wording is being interpreted differently. The way I'm reading the guideline, it's stating that a person is supposed to visit the coordinates and sign the log before they post the online "found it" log. 

 

If the log is there, I log a find, then a NM. 

By the site,  I need to visit the coordinates and sign the logbook (though log "book" is rare these days...).  

 - I did that, and now need to notify the CO that they have issues.

 

Agreed.  Don't know how it can be "interpreted" differently either.   Not sure why some think "only" and "ifs" are needed ...   

It doesn't say anything about a container, condition of a container, or what constitutes a cache to log a find.

You need to simply visit the coordinates and sign the log.  

 

"What constitutes a cache" is a CO guideline when placing/maintaining a hide, not  the finder's ability to log it found...

Edited April 4, 2019 by cerberus1
addification

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

It doesn't say anything about a container, condition of a container, or what constitutes a cache to log a find.

You need to simply visit the coordinates and sign the log.  

 

"What constitutes a cache" is a CO guideline when placing/maintaining a hide, not  the finder's ability to log it found...

 

I agree. There are two different sets of requirements. One for hiding and other for finding.

Edited April 4, 2019 by arisoft

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:04 PM, niraD said:

It's certainly feasible, but it requires focus and a lot of work.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to do it on anything like a regular basis. And it's faster and easier with friends, even without any tricks (monte/leapfrogging).

 

It's a lot of work, but so is hiking 5 hours for a couple really great caches.

[+Mudfrog]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 3:00 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

Agreed.  Clear as day.  

 

 

If the log is there, I log a find, then a NM. 

By the site,  I need to visit the coordinates and sign the logbook (though log "book" is rare these days...).  

 - I did that, and now need to notify the CO that they have issues.

 

Agreed.  Don't know how it can be "interpreted" differently either.   Not sure why some think "only" and "ifs" are needed ...   

It doesn't say anything about a container, condition of a container, or what constitutes a cache to log a find.

You need to simply visit the coordinates and sign the log.  

 

"What constitutes a cache" is a CO guideline when placing/maintaining a hide, not  the finder's ability to log it found...

 

And I guess this is about where things get cloudy for me. Yes, the find guideline states a person can log the find online after they visit the coordinates and sign the log. But at the same time, the hide guideline states that a log book/sheet must be inside a container.

 

Quote

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook for geocachers to record their visit. The logbook must be

• Physical
• Replaceable
• Easy to sign
• Enclosed within a container

 

The guidelines are not in sync with each other in my opinion. The way I see it, if I find just a logbook, then I haven't really found a cache.

[+arisoft]

31 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

And I guess this is about where things get cloudy for me. Yes, the find guideline states a person can log the find online after they visit the coordinates and sign the log. But at the same time, the hide guideline states that a log book/sheet must be inside a container.

 

31 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The guidelines are not in sync with each other in my opinion. The way I see it, if I find just a logbook, then I haven't really found a cache.

 

You can log a DNF or NM when you find a logbook without container. Yesterday I found a logbook without container but I didn't post anything else than Found It log.

[+BKip]

Me, I really do not care how many Geocache anyone else found. Unless I know you personally, if you disappeared from the face of the earth today, it would have no effect on my life. On the other hand, if you have placed caches that I have found or will find, then you have had or will have an effect on my life (whether I ever meet you or not) and I thank you that entertainment you provide.