How many caches can you find in one day?

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

It's easier to find lots of caches on roads with almost no traffic, as in the example with photograph of part of the power trail. My record is 82 caches, and also it was my first major power trail. I have not had the interest since to enlarge the daily find count. Here is my first attempted power trail. It was novel then. Now they are too common. We found about half (82) the caches that day and returned another day to complete the rest. We could have found all the caches the first day, but enough was enough.

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=d570379d-d67b-4a62-b16c-261926c3ba96

[+terratin 343]

3 hours ago, Unit473L said:

Are there any other rules we can break on the ET?

 

I don't have Premium so I don't get the full stats, but having a look through my (short) list of finds, it looks like 5 is the best I've done in one day (with 4 on another day and a few days with 3).

 

Someone might install these, and then people can just print, prestamp and cut pieces of paper, turn them into a small ball and just toss them out of the window. You get to log twice (special rule for ET highway) if you actually hit the net.

 

[Unit473L 114]

I love it!  

 

There's being flexible, there's bending the rules, there's flat out breaking the rules and then there's going so far out of the scope of the rules that it's barely the same game! 

 

The last step will be to build a robot arm, to throw pre-printed logs into a net with a return chute and a script to auto-log it onto the site. None of the fun of caching while barely glancing in the direction of the rules. rofl!

[+Team Dennis 16]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, I don't see much difference between John finding caches 1-1000 while Jane finds caches 1001-2000, vs John finding caches 1, 3, 5, etc., while Jane finds caches 2, 4, 6, etc.

 

If caches 1-1000 are in one area (let's say in Florida) and caches 1001-2000 are in another area (let's say Texas) and John and Jane are never in each other's area, then it's much different than the two of them riding down a bike trail together.  Also, if John can't find cache 1 on the bike trail, Jane stops to help look until they either find it or DNF it..which would not happen if the two of them were nowhere near each other.  It's a HUGE difference between leap frogging and divide and conquer.  

 

How about looking at it this way:  If you are out caching with a friend while hiking thru the woods, and as you search GZ your friend finds the cache first, do you sign the log yourself or just have your friend sign the log for you since they already have the log in hand?    If you have personally signed the log for every find that you've logged, then good for you for having purist levels of morality that would make Knowschad proud.  (Seriously...I'm not being facetious about that.  It's rather impressive no matter what.)  

[+niraD 3291]

11 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

How about looking at it this way:  If you are out caching with a friend while hiking thru the woods, and as you search GZ your friend finds the cache first, do you sign the log yourself or just have your friend sign the log for you since they already have the log in hand? 

Yes. Sometimes I sign my own name. Sometimes I sign my own name and my friend's name. Sometimes my friend signs both our names.

 

But I don't sign my friends name for a cache I found while my friend was 528ft down the road searching for some other cache. And I don't log finds for caches I didn't search for, even if my friend signed my name to it. Neither of those is geocaching.

[+barefootjeff 3827]

2 hours ago, Team Dennis said:

How about looking at it this way:  If you are out caching with a friend while hiking thru the woods, and as you search GZ your friend finds the cache first, do you sign the log yourself or just have your friend sign the log for you since they already have the log in hand?    If you have personally signed the log for every find that you've logged, then good for you for having purist levels of morality that would make Knowschad proud.  (Seriously...I'm not being facetious about that.  It's rather impressive no matter what.)  

 

One of my caching friends once wrote "if you don't write your own name in the log book, or weren't in a position where you were able to, please do not claim it as a find" and, to me, that seems to be a good rule of thumb. So having someone write your name in the logbook while you're standing next to them is fine, but not if you're off somewhere else.

[+Max and 99 2151]

37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One of my caching friends once wrote "if you don't write your own name in the log book, or weren't in a position where you were able to, please do not claim it as a find" and, to me, that seems to be a good rule of thumb. So having someone write your name in the logbook while you're standing next to them is fine, but not if you're off somewhere else.

I was thinking about that all last night about having to write your own name in the log. I also agree that it's a good rule of thumb. My favorite caching partner cannot write his own name, so I would amend this to IF you are able to write your own name in other situations, write your own name in the logbook. My caching partner however will not log a find unless he physically touched the cache. 

[+Team Dennis 16]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

Yes. Sometimes I sign my own name. Sometimes I sign my own name and my friend's name. Sometimes my friend signs both our names.

 

But I don't sign my friends name for a cache I found while my friend was 528ft down the road searching for some other cache. And I don't log finds for caches I didn't search for, even if my friend signed my name to it. Neither of those is geocaching.

 

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment...what if (for whatever reason or for no reason at all) you never got within 10' of your cache?  Let's say your friend found it, but you just stayed where you were for whatever reason but you could easily have walked over to it (as opposed to it being up a tree or across a river or something) to touch the cache or sign the log.  What's the difference with you doing that and me seeing my buddy signing the log on a cache as I whizzed by him on my bike en route to the next cache?  We (you and I) were both 10' away from our respective caches, but we never touched them or signed our name on the log.  

 

When I leap frog with my buddy, I never leave GZ until he has eyes on the cache and vice versa.

[+Max and 99 2151]

Just now, Team Dennis said:

 

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment...what if (for whatever reason or for no reason at all) you never got within 10' of your cache?  Let's say your friend found it, but you just stayed where you were for whatever reason but you could easily have walked over to it (as opposed to it being up a tree or across a river or something) to touch the cache or sign the log.  What's the difference with you doing that and me seeing my buddy signing the log on a cache as I whizzed by him on my bike en route to the next cache?  We (you and I) were both 10' away from our respective caches, but we never touched them or signed our name on the log.  

 

When I leap frog with my buddy, I never leave GZ until he has eyes on the cache and vice versa.

The difference is in one situation you're both looking for the same cache and the other situation only one of you is looking at GZ but both of you get a find. 

[+Team Dennis 16]

Just now, Max and 99 said:

The difference is in one situation you're both looking for the same cache and the other situation only one of you is looking at GZ but both of you get a find. 

 

What if your buddy made it to GZ and found the cache before you even had a chance?  Like you stopped to admire a tree or something and your buddy found, signed and replaced the hide before you even got there?  

[+Max and 99 2151]

3 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

 

What if your buddy made it to GZ and found the cache before you even had a chance?  Like you stopped to admire a tree or something and your buddy found, signed and replaced the hide before you even got there?  

That's an easy one. I'd find the cache myself & sign the log.

[+Team Dennis 16]

5 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

That's an easy one. I'd find the cache myself & sign the log.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.    

 

Note to others:  View this thread as a guide to having a civil discussion of opposing viewpoints.   

[+niraD 3291]

24 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

If I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment...what if (for whatever reason or for no reason at all) you never got within 10' of your cache?  Let's say your friend found it, but you just stayed where you were for whatever reason but you could easily have walked over to it (as opposed to it being up a tree or across a river or something) to touch the cache or sign the log.

So something like this: I drop my backpack at GZ (as identified by our device(s), and then I search to the east of the backpack and my buddy searches to the west. And for some reason, I'm geocaching with someone who refuses to play "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk" style and insists on spoiling the hide declaring victory as soon as he spots the cache. And my buddy spots it (and spoils the hide declares victory) 20ft west of GZ when I'm 20ft east of GZ, 40ft away from my buddy.

 

Sure, I'll play "Three Musketeers" style and log the find, even though my buddy was the one who found it. I was involved in the search, we were searching together, and we found it.

 

24 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

What's the difference with you doing that and me seeing my buddy signing the log on a cache as I whizzed by him on my bike en route to the next cache?

You were whizzing by on your bicycle. I was searching for the cache. It seems like a significant difference to me.

 

24 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

When I leap frog with my buddy, I never leave GZ until he has eyes on the cache and vice versa.

So which is it? Do you help him find the cache or do you whizz by on your bike?

[+Max and 99 2151]

12 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.    

 

Note to others:  View this thread as a guide to having a civil discussion of opposing viewpoints.   

I wholeheartedly agree!

[+cerberus1 3319]

32 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

The difference is in one situation you're both looking for the same cache and the other situation only one of you is looking at GZ but both of you get a find. 

 

In a nearby state where we'd be regular FTF, a "numbers" cacher would often make it to GZ as one of us was signing the log.

"Could you please sign my name too?" , and he'd be outta sight before we put the container back in it's spot.

I liked FTF because you're the only person to see the hide as the CO intended.  He didn't even want to see what is was...

One event had this same cacher ask everyone to sign his name as he was walking away (the EO was late...) to head for another.

We didn't tell him that event logs didn't have to be signed...          

 

[+niraD 3291]

19 minutes ago, Team Dennis said:

Note to others:  View this thread as a guide to having a civil discussion of opposing viewpoints.   

But the other side is E-E-E-EVIL! And is trying to destroy the country!

 

SICNR...

[+ecanderson 592]

6 hours ago, Team Dennis said:

 

What if your buddy made it to GZ and found the cache before you even had a chance?  Like you stopped to admire a tree or something and your buddy found, signed and replaced the hide before you even got there?  

Is that the same as a geowhizz?

[+NYPaddleCacher 1827]

16 hours ago, Team Dennis said:

 

What if your buddy made it to GZ and found the cache before you even had a chance?  Like you stopped to admire a tree or something and your buddy found, signed and replaced the hide before you even got there?  

 

Now it sounds like you're just looking for excuses to justify to yourself that you've made a find.

[+CAVinoGal 658]

19 hours ago, niraD said:

Sure, I'll play "Three Musketeers" style and log the find, even though my buddy was the one who found it. I was involved in the search, we were searching together, and we found it.

 

Hubby and I cache together most of the time, and we get to GZ and "take sides" or start searching different likely areas, till one of says "Got it!" unless it's so obvious we both spot it as we walk up.

 

We've done two semi-power trails, one got us 30+ for a day, the other was our all time high of 40.  In both cases, we were in a car; one driver, one navigator.  Navigator jumps out, grabs cache, signs for both (or all in one case), and driver heads to the next.  But after 30 or so, we'd had enough.

 

One trail we did for a souvenir and we needed the 30 additional caches and it was the last weekend to do it. For this one, hubby drove, and I got out and grabbed the cache and signed for us.  They were spaced about every third power pole ... we got into a rhythm, and after an hour or so we were done - we had the # we needed and decided it isn't how we like to geocache!  We haven't been back to "find" the other 50 or so caches along that power trail. 

 

The other was a series of puzzle caches that formed a geo-art in the desert; it took us 2 or three trips to our sons place in Arizona to complete the series of 65 or 66 caches.  We did it, and that's a nice geoart to have on our finds map!  But it was a challenge and we couldn't do it in one day as several cachers have.  I may not have touched or physically signed every one of those caches, but I was in the car watching (while keeping baby busy!) or out searching for all of them.  Some I did the signing, some were signed by someone else.  

 

To get back to the topic at hand, which is how many caches you can find in one day - the answer will vary and depends on the cacher.  For me, the most I can do (or want to do) is probably around 30; most days I go geocaching, it's a handful, sometimes a few more, rarely more than 20.  Other geocachers will have other answers.

Edited October 10, 2020 by CAVinoGal

[+DakotaDave60 1]

I just looks 15 is the most in one day for me. While on vacation all traditional puzzle caches.  I need the passwords from 10 in 2 counties to complete the challenge.  We did 7 the next day covering 250 miles to finish a series. Also stopped for lunch went shopping and visited a second hand store. In my 20 mile drive to work there's a cache  every mile a few park and grabs some puzzles and a couple multis. I get two or three a week during my drive. Usually when my daughter or wife are with. I've had to call the CO on acouple I couldn't figure them out. Most are 200 to 500 feet from the road in a tree row.  I'm not chasing any numbers so I do at my pace.

[+Wadcutter 12]

We (wife and I) got 202 in one day.  It was an easy power trail.  There was a match case at the base of every other power pole along a country road.  No other traffic.  I could pull up to the pole, jump out, sign the log, and the wife kept the record so I could log the website when we got home.  It went for several miles up and down country roads.  The only reason we did it was just to see how many we could log in a day.  Honestly it wasn't fun and got to be very boring and tiring.  Normally the goal is to find the cache.  That day the goal was to log as many caches in a day.  

Our next highest daily count was 54.  It too was a power trail in Louisiana.  It was along a backwater road.  It was more interesting since there all kinds of animals we saw along the trail.  It was the same tho as the 202 day.  A string of match cases tied to brush.  

 

[+ras_oscar 91]

When I started caching I was all about the numbers and milestones. Fill the calendar. Push up my daily average. Then I got burned out and didn't cache for several years Now I'm back with a upgraded GPS and a more balanced approach. If it's not still fun go do something else.

[+thebruce0 2484]

On 10/9/2020 at 3:21 AM, Max and 99 said:

On 10/9/2020 at 3:10 AM, thebruce0 said:

John and Jane were both likely seeing or touching every cache as they passed

Not according to what was posted. 

 

On 10/7/2020 at 4:13 PM, Team Dennis said:

If he didn't find it I would stop and look...otherwise he'd say he had it and I'd move along to the next one.  

 

Per how I described it, that aligns with my description. If we pass by someone else looking, then either 1) we stop to look until we find it or dnf it together, or 2) it's found and either spotted or touched before moving along to the next while one person lingers behind to replace the cache.  By the quote above, what I visualize are two people in close proximity, and while not explicitly stating "I see every cache" (eg), in my mind it's fairly given that there's some first-hand amount of knowledge of where/how each cache is located.

This is very different than dividing - 2 or more groups splitting up into very different locations - and finding different 'sets' of geocaches without being anywhere the others they also log as found.

That's the distinction I was making.

 

The odd/even split is kind of in between. I've never seen 'leap frogging' used in a manner of "I'll take odds and you take evens and we'll both go at our own paces never seeing or verifying each other's finds or dnfs", that's not what I got from Team Dennis's comment above. If people were to use that strategy, it would be quite unoptimal - they'd be better to split the trail into first and second half to optimize their efforts.

[+thebruce0 2484]

On 10/9/2020 at 5:22 PM, Team Dennis said:

On 10/9/2020 at 5:13 PM, Max and 99 said:

That's an easy one. I'd find the cache myself & sign the log.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.    

 

Note to others:  View this thread as a guide to having a civil discussion of opposing viewpoints.   

 

This.

As I've mentioned in other discussions, the primary issue for community (at least for me) is that a cache's log history is accurate. The rules for logging a find online (or at least protecting your find from the CO deleting it) is that the name you cached with is in the logbook. The game is flexible enough to allow for a variety of personal ethics within the guidelines when it comes to what qualifies in your mind as "finding a geocache". When the logs become inaccurate or misleading, then it affects other people. And if you begin insulting or denigrating people for not following the same ethics as yourself (or elevating yourself morally higher than them, eg) then I think you cross a line.

If you choose to physically sign every single physical geocache you ever log online, that's great, excellent, commendable.

If you are happy to log a cache found if you stand on the trail while your friend signs you both in while 10' in and you're confident you'd have found it were you there first or if you wanted to yourself, that's entirely allowable and I'd wager that the enormously vast majority of geocachers have done this at least a handful of times in their geocaching career, especially those with 10's of thousands of finds.

 

Find logs that have not been verified can affect other geocachers if inaccurate.

Find logs that imply a factually accurate state of the cache for others are not of direct concern (of course questionable practices can potentially become abusive behaviour which can then be an issue but that's another discussion that's also been had in these forums).

If you want to "police" caches and logs for etiquette that you don't like despite being within the guidelines... umm... you may not be encouraging very many geofriends (at least those who don't think like you).

[+thebruce0 2484]

On 10/9/2020 at 5:39 PM, cerberus1 said:

In a nearby state where we'd be regular FTF, a "numbers" cacher would often make it to GZ as one of us was signing the log.

"Could you please sign my name too?" , and he'd be outta sight before we put the container back in it's spot.

I liked FTF because you're the only person to see the hide as the CO intended.  He didn't even want to see what is was...

One event had this same cacher ask everyone to sign his name as he was walking away (the EO was late...) to head for another.

We didn't tell him that event logs didn't have to be signed...          

 

Ugh. yeah. We have some people here who will claim an FTF is they were there while the cache was open. Personally, I will not claim an FTF unless I helped search in some way. That was teamwork, so a shared FTF, even if the other person laid hands on it first. That's the nice thing about shared FTF (and I label it as such so as to distinguish solo FTFs - that's my ethic).  I got blasted by someone once because I had the cache opened, signed, and was just closing it up when they arrived and I dashed on to the next (there were a couple in the vicinity). I was the bad guy for a) not waiting so they could sign in and share the ftf,  b) claiming the solo ftf, c) replacing the cache so they could find it (they were still 30+m away on approach).

 

In that case, I'll write what happened in my log, but they can still write what they want in theirs. Wouldn't bother me if they claimed a shared ftf or whatever; what bothers me is the antagonism making me out to be the bad guy. (or anyone, as mentioned above)

[+cerberus1 3319]

14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Ugh. yeah. We have some people here who will claim an FTF is they were there while the cache was open.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 I was on topic of "how many caches can you...", with a "numbers" cachers who'd rarely see or touch a container, or stay for an event themselves.

"FTF" was simply to show they'd appear early enough, and it just seemed that having the container in our hands saved them "time".

AFAIK they've never falsely claimed a FTF.

[+thebruce0 2484]

2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

"FTF" was simply to show they'd appear early enough, and it just seemed that having the container in our hands saved them "time".

 

Same happens without the "FTF" in issue.  As described in earlier posts - if someone 'sees' the container from the trail to log it found while the other is holding the cache signing them in.

 

FTF or not, this is a common occurrence. And not to be equated with 'divide and conquer'.

There's a wide variety of examples that could be explained and used while geocaching. And again, as long as the cache was actually found, and the name is in the logbook, everything else is arguing personal ethics and opinions. So when it comes to power trails like ET, if everything is allowable and correctly described, and most everyone treats strategies they employ on that particular trail as an exception to their general habits, then it's probably much easier to shrug it off than be policing ethics and worrying about others' logging tactics.

 

It's interesting to me moreso seeing the strategies people employ that have given them their "one day" count they claim. I may have 900, by car, on the ET, with 3 friends. But someone hitting 100 by hiking a trial solo may be MUCH more impressive and interesting!  Or on the water paddling from cache to cache. Or biking.  Or on a unicycle.  If the logging practice is 'legal', as it were, then I really couldn't care less if they didn't touch every geocache log and sign their own name. Which would itself be an impressive and interesting feat.  Just sayin'. It's just not something to get angsty about