Jump to content

First geocaching World Guinness Record achieved! in Spain


Recommended Posts

Hi folks, good morning!

 

Do you remember my last geoart published one year ago?
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8KC6K_dragons-treasure-0001

 

Well, it took a whole year to get it but finally I have received an official recognition for the largest geoart (1010 caches):

 

We have achieved the first World Guinness Record for Geocaching!!

 

148464451_10222023225182042_138769563640968161_n.jpg.beb8b53201633a1bd100c8003629b06a.jpg

 

 

This is the geoart on the map:

 

148294238_10222023225062039_6416361872596508113_n.jpg.3b3efe05a907ed93d441e7d44287cf0a.jpg
 

 

mapa.gif?dl=1

 

And this is the the extesion of the area. If you compare it with the city of Madrid... it is much bigger :D

 

147824755_10222023225822058_2401468526549562088_o.thumb.jpg.661040b3f07fa9f1025bef400a29cf30.jpg

 

The geoart is in Toledo, Spain, near our megaevent Brunete4Geo that will take place on October.

 

All you are welcome to visit us!
(If COVID-19 allow us to celebrate the mega, of course)

 

#geoart #geocaching #brunete4geo #b4g2021 #picarax #ilovegeocaching #megaevent #mad4geo #geocachinginspain #cache #toledo

147901714_10222023168900635_4376986954593958585_o.jpg

Edited by Picarax
  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 2
  • Love 2
Link to post
11 hours ago, Picarax said:

We have achieved the first World Guinness Record for Geocaching!!

I keep getting a 404 error when I click on your profile to send you a congrats.

Huge congratulations!!

  • Love 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, A J Pombo said:

Congratulations on the excellent initiative to publicize geocaching in the Toledo region.
It is undoubtedly a great effort to create and maintain a geoart with more then 1000 caches.

 

15 hours ago, DreamMachine74 said:

Well that's amazing! Awesome to see Guinness recognizing geocaching achievements....that's a heck of a crazy geo-art.

 

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Impressive, and that Guinness actually awarded the largest geoart

 

17 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I keep getting a 404 error when I click on your profile to send you a congrats.

Huge congratulations!!

 

Thanks to all! :D

Link to post
1 hour ago, Picarax said:

 

 

 

 

Thanks to all! :D

 

Now if I can figure out how to solve them. My Spanish is very rusty. There's only ONE remaining cache in Toledo that I've found that hasn't been archived so when the world opens back up I'll have to schedule an adventure.

Link to post
21 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

Now if I can figure out how to solve them. My Spanish is very rusty. There's only ONE remaining cache in Toledo that I've found that hasn't been archived so when the world opens back up I'll have to schedule an adventure.

 

Well that was an easy solve. Thanks.

Link to post
On 2/9/2021 at 11:26 PM, thebruce0 said:

Impressive, and that Guinness actually awarded the largest geoart

 

I think you misunderstand Guinness' business model. They'll certify pretty much anything for a fee nowadays.

  • Upvote 5
  • Funny 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, coocootoo said:

I think you misunderstand Guinness' business model. They'll certify pretty much anything for a fee nowadays.

 

I'm waiting for the inevitable crossover when Guiness beer runs an ad campaign about Guinness world records certifying them as best beer in the world. :tongue: 

  • Funny 2
Link to post

Looks like time for the League of ID Geocachers to add another puff of smoke or maybe rails to the locomotive. Truly impressive art in that one.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, coocootoo said:

 

I think you misunderstand Guinness' business model. They'll certify pretty much anything for a fee nowadays.

 

In this case, you are wrong, I'm afraid.;)
The achievement of this record has not entailed payment to WGR. However, it did involve a lot of work, around 300 hours :blink:, done by just one person.

 

 

9 hours ago, K13 said:

Looks like time for the League of ID Geocachers to add another puff of smoke or maybe rails to the locomotive. Truly impressive art in that one.

 

I would be delighted if that magnificent team of geocachers broke the record. :anicute:
I have opened a door that anyone who works hard can walk through. :rolleyes:

Edited by Picarax
  • Funny 2
Link to post

While this is an impressive achievement and I commend your effort to get it Guinness certified, I'm not sure I would have guessed what the art in the Dragon's Treasure series was representing just by looking at it on the geocaching browse map.  

(I must admit that the Railroad series in Idaho (1000 caches, starting with GC3FA3B) is much more aesthetically pleasing in terms of a geo-art arrangement of this scale.)

 

But still very cool, well done!

 

I am curious: what constitutes a geo-art by Guinness standards?  Must the geocaches be placed by a single user all around the same timeframe? Do they have to have similar titles corresponding to one series?  Who determines what is "art" and what isn't?  Is this what you had to spend 300 hours to prove?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On 2/15/2021 at 6:21 AM, coocootoo said:
On 2/9/2021 at 6:26 PM, thebruce0 said:

Impressive, and that Guinness actually awarded the largest geoart

 

I think you misunderstand Guinness' business model. They'll certify pretty much anything for a fee nowadays.

 

Oh I know.

 

1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

While this is an impressive achievement and I commend your effort to get it Guinness certified, I'm not sure I would have guessed what the art in the Dragon's Treasure series was representing just by looking at it on the geocaching browse map.  

(I must admit that the Railroad series in Idaho (1000 caches, starting with GC3FA3B) is much more aesthetically pleasing in terms of a geo-art arrangement of this scale.)

 

But still very cool, well done!

 

I am curious: what constitutes a geo-art by Guinness standards?  Must the geocaches be placed by a single user all around the same timeframe? Do they have to have similar titles corresponding to one series?  Who determines what is "art" and what isn't?  Is this what you had to spend 300 hours to prove?

 

Very much what I was thinking too. If Geoart is simple a 'pattern', then this qualifies (technically it is - it's an pattern of listings made to match a custom design graphic art) - as opposed to a commonly recognizable object or shape that wouldn't require a much more subjective exposure to a unique piece of art. I think most people think of geoart as the latter - something recognizable. If the former, someone could lay out an enormous pattern of icons, and then make a graphic to match it...

 

I think Guinness went somewhere between the two. It's clearly not random, the 'art' has a meaning and purpose; it's just not a pre-existing, commonly understood object or shape.

 

And arguably, other massive geoarts have also been based on logos that people may not know until they discover the original artwork; but from what I've seen, they're generally composed of clearly common shapes and/or words and letters. By contrast, this geoart is a bunch of lines, rough (as paper edges) with nothing really recognizable in and of itself.

 

It's a grey area :P  But that doesn't reduce the impressive accomplishment, of course!

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post

The truth is that you are right that this geoart has a shape that is not easily recognizable.


The idea was to outline as much as possible the edges of the map's pergram, and also include the path to the "treasure".

mapa.gif?dl=1

 

 

Indeed there are many other geoarts that form a much more recognizable figure.
To put two other geoarts that I have previously hidden: R2D2 and CITO.

36289576_10214635373250361_6478788257109770240_o.jpg.4f570afe6123d71375c89e6a8693fb35.thumb.jpg.b92ca4db63b3b4f15d1f001d9201fbe3.jpg

 

However, the achievement of this geoart is its great extension, its ease of search and finally the number of caches that make it up.

It's certainly not a pretty geoart.


The work time (300 hours) is divided between the preparation and hiding the caches, the creation of all the pages of the caches and later having to revisit all the caches again to be able to gather the necessary evidence to achieve the record, and incidentally I performed maintenance on the entire series.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Picarax said:

However, the achievement of this geoart is its great extension, its ease of search and finally the number of caches that make it up.

It's certainly not a pretty geoart.

 

Congrats on getting into the Guinness book, but I really wish those placing geocaches would focus more on quality rather than quantity, and one-upping other geocachers to see how can create more quantity.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 5
Link to post

I prefer it when the art is "drawn" with traditionals rather than mystery caches. It just seems better when you actually draw the pictures with your steps. Definitely more of a challenge to create.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
On 2/17/2021 at 4:05 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Congrats on getting into the Guinness book, but I really wish those placing geocaches would focus more on quality rather than quantity, and one-upping other geocachers to see how can create more quantity.

I totally agree with you, in fact I have quite a few good quality hidden caches as well. In fact, in our region there are many good quality caches of all kinds.
There are many people who strive to put quality caches in addition to quantity caches. Both types of geocaching are perfectly compatible.
I am glad that you bet on quality. That is traditional geocaching.

 

21 hours ago, fendmar said:

I prefer it when the art is "drawn" with traditionals rather than mystery caches. It just seems better when you actually draw the pictures with your steps. Definitely more of a challenge to create.

The problem in our country 87% of the land is intended for hunting. You can't hide caches there.
So it is VERY complicated, if not impossible, to hide a large geoart in a permitted area.

 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Picarax said:

There are many people who strive to put quality caches in addition to quantity caches. Both types of geocaching are perfectly compatible.

 

I can't say that I really agree with that.  When a trail system or park is saturated with caches intended to help finder increase their number, without consideration for quality, there isn't room for anything else.  It's extremely rare (I've never seen it anyway) for an area to have a greater percentage of caches with a focus on quality than those just placed for numbers hounds.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

At least in my case, all my caches for power trails / geoarts (En un lugar de la Mancha - 600, Pokemon - 801, Dragon's Heart - 1010 geocaches), I have placed them on service roads parallel to highways and big roads. The interest of these places is basically nil.

 

This way, I avoid placing low-quality caches in interesting places.

Edited by Picarax
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, Picarax said:

I have placed them on service roads parallel to highways and big roads. The interest of these places is basically nil.

As it should be for a past time promoted as being "the language of location" and not "lets carpet bomb every available spot" <SCNR>

 

So count me in to the minority who will not admire such records regardless how much "blood, sweat and tears" went into such endeavors.

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 2
Link to post
20 hours ago, Picarax said:

At least in my case, all my caches for power trails / geoarts (En un lugar de la Mancha - 600, Pokemon - 801, Dragon's Heart - 1010 geocaches), I have placed them on service roads parallel to highways and big roads. The interest of these places is basically nil.

 

This way, I avoid placing low-quality caches in interesting places.

 

I've found interesting places within 528ft/161m of service roads parallel to highways and big roads. Your numbers trails saturate the area and block those locations. They don't just block the service roads themselves.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Can we just remember that there are people who love "quality geocaches" as well as people who love "quality time". Some won't prioritize a "quality geocache container" but a "quality location" or a "quality time with friends". Flip the table and you may have people criticizing someone who puts a long multi around a trail system when there could be multiple geocaches. Who should have higher priority? Neither. Because both are enjoyed and both are allowable. Find a place that works for the kind of cache you like, while also realizing that if you place a cache for an experience you like you may well be removing the option for a cache experience someone else likes that you don't.

(and I'm not arguing for numbers - I have one of those single-cache-that-takes-up-a-trail-system caches; only arguing for remembering that people like different things (as we all know) but how we talk about people who like different things really sets a tone for the community.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Can we just remember that there are people who love "quality geocaches" as well as people who love "quality time". Some won't prioritize a "quality geocache container" but a "quality location" or a "quality time with friends". Flip the table and you may have people criticizing someone who puts a long multi around a trail system when there could be multiple geocaches. Who should have higher priority? Neither.

 

If there is contest between quantity vs. quality, quantity will always win, simply because each cache uses the same amount of real estate.  A larger quantity of caches will take up more real estate (which prevents any other type of cache from being placed) than a small number of caches which COs made an effort to be higher quality than a cache placed simply to increase find counts.    

 

18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Who should have higher priority? Neither. Because both are enjoyed and both are allowable.

 

I would contend that those that primarily enjoy caching for the numbers are less discriminate about caches they find  (a find is a find, they all add to the find count) than those that rate quality over quantity.   Quantity has a far greater negative impact on those that want quality than vice versa.   They're not equally enjoyed.   Ever since the guideline which stated "don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can" was removed, the trend and mindset towards caching for the numbers had greatly exceeded any kind of effort to promote quality.  The number of multi or puzzle caches placed in an area where I numbers trail can be created  so significantly dwarfs the number of caches placed to increase the find count for others  that it's an insult to suggest that they're in any way equal.   The all about the numbers mindset has been rampant for over 10 years and shows no sign of letting up.  Stop pretending like we can all play the game like we want.  

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If there is contest between quantity vs. quality, quantity will always win, simply because each cache uses the same amount of real estate.  A larger quantity of caches will take up more real estate (which prevents any other type of cache from being placed) than a small number of caches which COs made an effort to be higher quality than a cache placed simply to increase find counts.    

 

Not sure what you mean. A multi can take up an entire forest - and that's one smiley - where many more could be individually created. And "quality" is entirely subjective. Again, one person's "quality geocache" is another person's "I really don't care", or "quality experience" or "quality hike" is another person's "nope no way".  Geocaching experiences isn't a democracy - it's simply whoever places what they like more is what will be more available to be found (at the possible expense of realestate that someone else could use for something they'd prefer to find). Whether it's more smileys (which doesn't fundamentally mean "bad" since those could all be "quality geocaches" as well), or individual mundane geocaches at great locations, or, or, or....

 

10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I would contend that those that primarily enjoy caching for the numbers are less discriminate about caches they find  (a find is a find, they all add to the find count) than those that rate quality over quantity.

 

I'd certainly agree with that for the most part. Some people it's a matter of 'mood' for the day; loving high count days sometimes and low count longer quality experiences on others.  But now you're talking about logging habits rather than cache placement habits. Regardless of how people find caches, quality is still entirely subjective. Not liking one style shouldn't cause someone denigrate someone else for liking them (but I'm not saying it's wrong to be bothered that there's a whole lot of a style of cache out there you don't like than those you do :) - it's kind of the difference between the sentiments "I don't like that there's so many X caches out there and fewer Z caches I like" and "people who hide X caches are a problem that needs to stop")

 

10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Quantity has a far greater negative impact on those that want quality than vice versa.

 

Sure, but I don't think eliminating "quantity" is the solution. I think it's a matter of encouraging people (as mentioned above) to understand that people like different things. On one hand, people who love "quality" (for arguments' sake, fewer and more focused) should stop looking down on people who love "quantity" (likewise, more amount and less special) - but on the other hand, people who love "quality" shouldn't dismiss the benefits of positivity when it comes to recognizing and thanking people who prefer fewer independent and more special experiences.

Granted that's more like a utopian world where everyone gets along :P  But in this world, we all share the same realestate. So we should all keep in mind that what we choose to place fundamentally "takes away" realestate that someone else could use for an experience they'd prefer. Whatever that may be. Keeping that in mind it's easier to realize that if I'm upset about someone else's action, they almost certainly have just as much reason to be upset about mine. That can change the face of how community interacts and shares this realestate. As opposed to always assuming my preferences are better than other people's.

 

10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Stop pretending like we can all play the game like we want. 

 

I'd be the last person to use that phrase. I hate that phrase. We can't all play the game like we want. There are rules and guidelines. There's the spirit of the game and a community that does affect each other in our activities and how we choose to play. Maybe it's more of a "cOeXiSt" mentality here, but I'm saying we should move away from looking down on the other allowable ways that people choose to play and enjoy that we may not (from all sides of the fence) and remember that it's a two way street. 

 

That's not me saying to give all the "great locations" to the powertrail numbers people. Nor am I saying it's wrong to not like powertrails. I'm saying it's not healthy for the community to rally against people who like powertrails or numbers, or blame them for the "downfall" of the game. Because to them the game may not be in a downfall. So who's right? Who's preference is more important?  The landscape of the hobby has changed over 21 years. For some, towards what they enjoy more, and for others, away from what they enjoy more. But it also depends on where you live and the makeup of your local geocaching community - something we can all have a hand in molding.

Edited by thebruce0
grammar/typos
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 2/17/2021 at 9:05 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Congrats on getting into the Guinness book, but I really wish those placing geocaches would focus more on quality rather than quantity, and one-upping other geocachers to see how can create more quantity.

 

I am not invalidating your opinion. With 13,000 posts here we all know you have one. But everything after the first comma in your sentence was not necessary. Your geocaching preference is not germane to the topic at hand.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, bflentje said:

 

I am not invalidating your opinion. With 13,000 posts here we all know you have one. But everything after the first comma in your sentence was not necessary. Your geocaching preference is not germane to the topic at hand.

 

 I can alway count on you to post your opinion that due to the number of posts I've made, my opinion doesn't matter.   Your entire post added nothing to the thread.  At least mine referenced to the topic of large scale geo-art, but for some odd reason, you seemed to be more offended by it than the OP.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post

I honestly didn't mean for this thread to turn into a quality versus quantity discussion. It was simply to publicize a geocaching milestone for everyone.

Folks, the world is very big and there is room for everything.

 

Tt is possible that at some point places that could have had a good quality cache are blocked. However, after 20 years playing geocaching, those places were still free.

 

And I assure you that if a player asks me to move a cache of a powertrail to place a quality cache, I will do it without hesitation.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Picarax said:

Tt is possible that at some point places that could have had a good quality cache are blocked. However, after 20 years playing geocaching, those places were still free.

 

Yep. And I'd even wager that for every instance of a complaint about a great spot taken up by proximity to a mundane powertrail cache, there are countless great spots still free for a cache (amazing container or mundane). And a "quality geocache" speaking of the container itself can already be along a trail or at a great location.

Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yep. And I'd even wager that for every instance of a complaint about a great spot taken up by proximity to a mundane powertrail cache, there are countless great spots still free for a cache (amazing container or mundane). And a "quality geocache" speaking of the container itself can already be along a trail or at a great location.

 

I had one like that.  It kept on getting logs thanking the creator of the power trail that subsequently saturated the trail.

 

I'd wager that the number of caches in just one power trail in Nevada greatly exceeds all the  multis, puzzles, and any cache using any definition of quality you want, in the world that have any negative impact at all on a power trail.  

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 2/9/2021 at 3:14 AM, Picarax said:

Well, it took a whole year to get it but finally I have received an official recognition for the largest geoart (1010 caches):

 

We have achieved the first World Guinness Record for Geocaching!!

Is there going to be a plaque on site? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'd wager that the number of caches in just one power trail in Nevada greatly exceeds all the  multis, puzzles, and any cache using any definition of quality you want, in the world that have any negative impact at all on a power trail.

 

So? I don't care what Nevada's geocaching landscape looks like. It doesn't affect me. And the way it looks, there's much more love for it than hatred in Nevada. That trail provided an AMAZING experience, in my opinion, and in the opinions of many many others. I'm extremely confident that the opinions loving the trail vastly outweigh any actual "I have a GREAT place and idea for a geocache - but an ET highway powertrail cache is taking up the proximity" complaints.  The ET highway is great example of a powertrail that is well placed. The chances of a "quality location" being obscured by one of the "mundane" powertrail caches are slim to none. 

 

To repeat what I said: "I'd even wager that for every instance of a complaint about a great spot taken up by proximity to a mundane powertrail cache, there are countless great spots still free for a [great] cache" -- it was not about the ratio of "powertrail caches" to "quality caches".

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

 I can alway count on you to post your opinion that due to the number of posts I've made, my opinion doesn't matter.   Your entire post added nothing to the thread.  At least mine referenced to the topic of large scale geo-art, but for some odd reason, you seemed to be more offended by it than the OP.

 

We all already know you prefer quality over quantity. But still 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not every thread needs to be derailed with your geocaching preferences.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
41 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

We all already know you prefer quality over quantity. But still 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not every thread needs to be derailed with your geocaching preferences.

 

Good thing that hasn't happened then.  Quantity vs. Quality is relevant in a discussion of Geo-Art, especially an instance that sets the Guinness world book record for "the number of caches in a geo-art".   

 

If you don't like hearing my preferences, there's  a simple solution for that, and it isn't censuring my opinion.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Picarax said:

Hey, I found a thread you can talk about quantity & quality :D

I am pretty sure the discussion would fit better in it

Thanks

 

 

I understand you want to shake off criticism, but sending us to a 2012 forum topic is not the best way to do it. 

 

The point for some of us is to express to the people who hide geoart and PTs, the downside of promoting geocache-placement records. 

 

Now that Guiness World Records recognizes mass placements of geocaches, we are sure to see your placement globally challenged shortly. This will negatively impact many communities (except by those who value numbers). I expect that we may even have teams contact cachers asking them to archive caches so that a Guiness World Record can take place in their community. Whole towns could end up  filled  with only one team's 1000s of world breaking placements. It's almost guaranteed that those caches will not be maintained.

 

(If there's an example of maintained 500+ PT/Geoart trail that is regularly maintained I'd like to know about it. I have never found one. I'd like to know about all the  PT/GeoArt trails that don't have multiple comments about maintenance needs, and comments indicating that the finders left throwdowns, and multiple NMs, and an NA or more.)

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 7
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

If there's an example of maintained 500+ PT/Geoart trail hat is regularly maintained I'd like to know about it. I have never found one. I'd like to know about all the  PT/GeoArt trails that don't have multiple comments about maintenance needs, and comments indicating that the finders left throwdowns, and multiple NMs, and an NA or more. 

 

Okay, this one only has 201 caches, but the Mid North Coast Wander trail (GC3P19D is the start and has lots of info about it) appears to be well-maintained, with none of the caches having any outstanding NMs. From all the accounts I've heard, its a good experience with good quality caches used (no micros) and is well maintained through a local community group account. The same goes for the Dogs Head Trail near Maitland (215 caches starting with GC7RF8B) where each cache is themed to a breed of dog. Again none have outstanding NMs and a quick glance at the logs suggests it's a good experience with quality containers used throughout. Both of these are on rural backroads, the first well spread out through state forests and national parks and the second along a loop road through farmland that happens to be in the shape of a dog's head, so are unlikely to impact other COs. I haven't done any of these as they're a long way from home but they've always been spoken of favourably at events I've attended.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to post

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

There's no inherent correlation between unmaintained geocaches and geoarts or powertrails - whether it's 20 caches or 1000. And when did this become a topic about maintenance rather than "quality"? Whether a cache is well-maintained or not can apply to "quality" or "mundane" (for lack of better terms) geocaches, whether on a power trail or not, or in amazing locations or not. It's another factor someone may or may not use to decide whether they think a cache, in their mind, provides a quality experience.  It does not follow to say "powertrails/geoarts are bad because I have not seen a powertrail/geoart of over 500 that is well maintained".

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...