+Mr & Mrs Hedgehog Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Had an idea. How about cache owners putting on their cache page how long they think the AVERAGE person should allow to complete the cache (not including looking for the cache)? I'm just talking about a guide on how long it would take to walk from the nearest/recommended parking point to the cache and back. So that when plan a days caching they know roughly how many they can fit in. There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't. Quote Link to comment
Sparticus Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Fantastic Idea. I think the only way it could work if it was a personal thing. A bit like saying which county the cache is in the title of the cache. There have been several I have completed which I thought would take an hour or maybe two at a push, but actually took a lot longer. (Im refering to one in Mansfield.) Knowing how long on average a cache should take would certainly help us when we go caching. I might even adopt the idea now and start puting it on my cache pages. Thanks for a fab idea. Onwards and upwards. Never retreat, never surrender. Quote Link to comment
+Bill D (wwh) Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 I generally give the distance on foot from the recommended parking place to the cache, with a comment about the terrain. For example, 'It's about three quarters of a mile and mostly uphill'. But this sounds like a good idea. I'll be checking one of my caches this week, unless anyone finds it in the meantime. I'll time the walk and put it on the page, then do the same with the others when I next visit them. Bill ------------------------------- "Ah, take the Cache and let the Credit go..." The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, trans. Edward Fitzgerald Quote Link to comment
+stu_and_sarah Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 I think distance and terrain comments are probably much more meaningful than an average time. I'd love to see '2 miles on the flat' or '0.6 miles over a stupidly big hill' than 'an hour'. Some of us really are very slow, y'know Stu Quote Link to comment
+Mr & Mrs Hedgehog Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Stu & Sarah:I think distance and terrain comments are probably much more meaningful than an average time. I'd love to see '2 miles on the flat' or '0.6 miles over a stupidly big hill' than 'an hour'. Some of us really are very slow, y'know Stu Why not both sets of figures? There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't. Quote Link to comment
MCL Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 Trouble is, sometimes the cache owner doesn't want you to know how feindish he/she is being to you. There is one cache which shall remain nameless, that once you have the clues in hand you find it is a two mile walk to teh cache, with no hope of parking any closer. Evil or wot? But thats the point. The cache owner *wants* to let you suffer. Saying the cache is two miles walk after an hour's searching for clues would rather give the game away. On the other hand, I always have tried to say on my caches how easy/how long they should take, mainly because I *don't* like nasty surprises. All mine so far can be done in under 15 minutes (EACH!!) No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.... Quote Link to comment
The Cuthberts Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Hmmm... we did this 'getting to within 100 yards of the cache' at the weekend followed by a lot more walking ! I would be interested to hear how long it took people to find caches though so we could judge whether we need food supplies, etc. Andy Quote Link to comment
+Teasel Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Maybe (for non-fiendish caches at least) we should say how long it took us to find the cache in each of our logs? This does have the advantage that it'd include all the actual finding of the cache, and also that you could get more than one opinion on each cache. I'm sure that, with lightweight shoes on, I could probably do my most difficult cache in about 20mins, but I'd advise visitors to leave themselves a little longer. GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community. Quote Link to comment
+NattyBooshka Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 A good suggestion, and I like Teasel's approach of logging it with your find... I'd find that more useful as you could find someone who logged a similar time to you elsewhere and follow that... rather than folowing a cache placer, who may well be a fell running type. (I never did understand fell runners!) Quote Link to comment
+Slytherin Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Teasel: I could probably do my most difficult cache in about 20mins, but I'd advise visitors to leave themselves a little longer. Grinning for 'ere to 'ere in 20 minutes? That would take some doing. I used to download my trail and find out my CTC (car to car) time for caches that I did, but I suppose as I move at about a quarter of the speed of Teasel (even when he has a baby carrier on his back) those kind of timings depend a lot on the physical capabilites of each cacher. Not sure if that makes sense but it did when I typed it. Alex. ------------------------------------------------ Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout..... Quote Link to comment
+Grynneman Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 if you have a map of the final location, then using Naismith's formula, 1 hour for every 3 miles, plus 1 hour for every 2000ft ascended (don't count descent).... ...That's just a rough outline, on the premise that you are a reasonably fit walker. Quote Link to comment
+paul.blitz Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Mr & Mrs Hedgehog:Had an idea. How about cache owners putting on their cache page how long they think the AVERAGE person should allow to complete the cache (not including looking for the cache)? I actually find it difficult to estimate how long someone will take to find my caches (heck, ask anyone who did my recent night-cache!!!). Ok, if it's a simple "start here and walk there" cache, then you can time your own walking, but if it's more than that (eg looking for clues on the way) then the time taken is a lot harder to guess... after all, you KNOW the answers already!!! But I like the idea of the first couple of finders giving a hint. Paul Another proud member of the GAGB! Quote Link to comment
+Teasel Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Team Blitz:but if it's more than that (eg looking for clues on the way) then the time taken is a lot harder to guess... ...and if it's one of your particularly evil multicaches with clues like "at the last cache, you should have spotted...", well, better take a tent and a sleeping bag just in case! GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.