Benchmarks And Total Finds

[+QuackAttack]

Why is it that when you find benchmarks they do not reflect in your total finds? I think they should and for several reasons.

 

1. You have to locate them using a GPS, no different than the virtual, regular caches, or others like location less.

2. They can be very fun to find and often lead you to interesting places, history, or views.

3. More geocachers I know of would look for (or more) benchmarks if they counted in the total. Many I talk to cite that as a reason not to bother.

4. Many are very difficult to get to and take some thought and work. Many we have are on roof tops, deep in the woods, etc.

5. It is fun for the family to look for them as well as the caches.

 

We have a "competition" going with our friends on total finds, what we find, etc. It makes it more fun to add some competition to finding them. I would like to see benchmarks reflecting in the total finds. Some virtuals and location-less are too easy and they count, why not benchmarks where many are very hard to locate.

[+Melrose Plant]

I have found that Benchmark hunting, in my case anyway, is not as good a family activity as geocaching. This is because of two reasons:

 

1)My 4 year old son always likes to take something from a cache, even though I personally don't usually give a hoot about the contents of a cache. Obviously, with a benchmark, there is no booty to be had.

 

2) A lot of benchmarks seem to be along busy highways and/or active railroads. Not good places for a little fellow. When he's a little older, maybe.

 

Therefore, I will stick to doing the benchmarks by myself. Also, I don't really see the need for a GPS when benchmarking, other than to mark location for future reference. I haven't found the GPS to be very useful in the actual finding of a benchmark. Maybe this has something to do with why they aren't included in the total.

[+wray_clan]

1.  You have to locate them using a GPS, no different than the virtual, regular caches, or others like location less.

   

Didn't USGS use landmarks to find the benchmarks?

 

To be on topic:

 

I think its not in the total because the total is "Total Caches Found." Nothing against becnhmarking at all. Its just an orange in a land of apples.

[+jeff35080]

You have to locate them using a GPS

 

You do?!?!?!

 

I guess the two that I found today without my GPS unit don't count then

 

Actually, no GPS unit is required to find a benchmark, although they can be helpful.

 

Anyways, others have already answered as to why they don't count towards 'finds'... the apples/oranges analogy is a perfect example.

[+cgp]

Having a GPSr comes in handy when your not really planning on BM hunting but happen to be in the area!

 

I've downloaded the nearest 500 BM waypoints into my GPS. If I have some time (and my camera) and happen to notice that I'll be close to a BM location, I go ahead and try to find it. I usually don't see the data sheets until I get home, since I'm just finding the BM's that happen to be along the way. Granted there have been a couple of times when the data sheet description (or destroyed note) would have saved me some time, but the enjoyment in BM hunting is in getting outside and not thinking about work or life problems. It's just you and your GPS out for the hunt!

[+GeckoGeek]

I've downloaded the nearest 500 BM waypoints into my GPS. If I have some time (and my camera) and happen to notice that I'll be close to a BM location, I go ahead and try to find it. I usually don't see the data sheets until I get home, since I'm just finding the BM's that happen to be along the way.

How do you know if you're hunting for a disk or a water tank?

[+QuackAttack]

Hmmm, though there is no booty with a BM neither is there with Locationless, virtual, and micros. Many of the BMs are way off the beaten trail not directly near roadways, same as caches.

 

Apples and Oranges because you don't have to use a GPS? We know of some that don't use a GPS to find the caches, for they get close using the maps and then with the clues have found the caches, one guy with over 1000+ finds. If we are going to count virtual and location-less, many of which you are on the roadway in traffic, then why not BMs. Have you tried to find a BM using just the information they give about it? It is worse than finding a cache.

 

Some are against counting BMs and some are against counting locationless, etc. If you have to use a GPS why not count them all? Those that call themselves "true cachers" think locationless and virtuals should be gone from the count. Maybe they should for the points and facts you have stated, booty and roadways, etc, would indicate those don't qualify as well towards the total count and are no apples in themselves. Can't have it both ways, are we looking for just booty then let us state that and drop all these mircos, locationless, and virtuals where people list them and never care for them. There are far more micros and virtuals than "true apple caches with booty" out there. BMs are not just on roadways, one could only wish for such easy access as there is with most caches.

 

So where do Letterboxes fit in. Another fruit in the basket...oh...and they count towards the total, that's odd for they are far from apples as well.

[+wray_clan]

Nothing against becnhmarking at all. Its just an orange in a land of apples.

My reason for saying this is: benchmarks are not an original creation of gc.com.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Nothing against becnhmarking at all. Its just an orange in a land of apples.

My reason for saying this is: benchmarks are not an original creation of gc.com.

To be perfectly honest, neither is geocaching.

 

That being said- I like hunting benchmarks (even tho I haven't found many yet) and I think they should be seperate and not included in cache totals. I also think virtual, locationless webcam and possibly event caches should be seperate too.

Edited January 19, 2004 by Corp Of Discovery

[+wray_clan]

Nothing against becnhmarking at all. Its just an orange in a land of apples.

My reason for saying this is: benchmarks are not an original creation of gc.com.

To be perfectly honest, neither is geocaching.

 

That being said- I like hunting benchmarks (even tho I haven't found many yet) and I think they should be seperate and not included in cache totals. I also think virtual, locationless webcam and possibly event caches should be seperate too.

Ah. I didn't know that.

 

I agree with your bottom paragraph. I think that benchmarks should be separate from regular geocaches just because...well...they're not geocaches. I may not be right here, but the benchmark was/should be easy to find, because it was simply a mark for the USGS mappers, not a treasure hunt. Some/most geocaches are placed with a difficult puzzle/search in mind.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Nothing against becnhmarking at all. Its just an orange in a land of apples.

My reason for saying this is: benchmarks are not an original creation of gc.com.

To be perfectly honest, neither is geocaching.

 

That being said- I like hunting benchmarks (even tho I haven't found many yet) and I think they should be seperate and not included in cache totals. I also think virtual, locationless webcam and possibly event caches should be seperate too.

Ah. I didn't know that.

 

I agree with your bottom paragraph. I think that benchmarks should be separate from regular geocaches just because...well...they're not geocaches. I may not be right here, but the benchmark was/should be easy to find, because it was simply a mark for the USGS mappers, not a treasure hunt. Some/most geocaches are placed with a difficult puzzle/search in mind.

Just a reminder that not all benchmarks are easy finds. I have several that took three and four tries to locate. Plus if you like hiking there are some in our area that require hikes of a mile or more one way. Just look for those that are not next to a roadway and have some fun.

 

John

[+Zatoichi]

Benchmarks SHOULD count in the total.

 

(1) A BM has no cache, but neither does a locationless or virtual cache. (2) GPSr may not be necessary, but it is helpful, and a GPSr is not necessary for all regular caches. (3) Letterboxes count, and they are not strictly 'Geo-caching'. (4) Yes, BM's can be in difficult and dangerous places, but so can regular caches.

 

As far as I'm concerned, benchmarking is just as much fun as looking for a regular cache. I'm outside, doing something fun, so why not incorporate it into our sport?

 

A compromise would be to only allow each BM to be logged only once. After that it would close. This way there is encouragement to find some that have not been located since '1938', or when ever. Regardless, benchmark's SHOULD count as part of the total find.

[+gbod]

A compromise would be to only allow each BM to be logged only once. After that it would close. This way there is encouragement to find some that have not been located since '1938', or when ever. Regardless, benchmark's SHOULD count as part of the total find.

So, any of the benchmarks you have found first would not count for anyone else? That doesn't seem fair, as any newcomers would have a very difficult time improving their find count. It's like letting only the first to find a geocache log it... I think the hobby would die rather quickly if that were to happen.

 

Just my opinion.

[RACooper]

The other problem with closing a BM log after one entry is that changes in status, description, corrections, etc would be impossible. Everything from a mark being destroyed after it was logged, to having the wrong mark logged (RM for tri-station, etc) would cease. I personally (not a pro surveyor) consider the GC.com BM database an invaluable historical reference, because many marks are logged here that never have updated reports to the NGS. I'm mainly into BM hunting for the history of it, and being unable to update that history when things change would negate the usefulness of our data.

Edited January 20, 2004 by RACooper

[+glennaa]

I say leave it like it is. There's already too much emphasis on numbers here in geocaching - by including bm's it just adds to the controversy. People already argue that virts aren't real caches, locationless aren't, and shouldn't be included in the total; Bm's would be treated the same way. Actually I would be happy if my stats page just showed the total of each type of geocache and benchmarks, but no net total.

[+Sagefox]

I enjoy both caching and benchmark hunting. I like watching my find counts raise in each category as well as watching other's find counts grow.

 

Find counts are important to me for several reasons and I would seriously slow down in both categories if the numbers were not posted. I don't feel highly competitive but I do like to collect the numbers. They represent and measure the physical activity and fun we are having.

 

I would not like to see caching and benchmark counts combined because they are substantially different activities. One is historic artifacts and the other human interaction.

[+bob393]

Too different activities. Sort of like reverse locationless is different. Neither is bad just different.

[+planetrobert]

1. You have to locate them using a GPS, no different than the virtual, regular caches, or others like location less.

i have found 18 BM's and never used my gps to find it... only to check BM accuracy

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I'm starting to think that the best thing would be to do away with the TOTAL find count only. The individual find count for each type is fine. That way there would be no problem- count what you would like as part of YOUR total finds. I still would seperate the virt and/or locationless caches to a seperate section tho.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

They are counted as Benchmarks!!

As what they are, same as a Virtual has it's sub heading along with Events,Locationless, Travel bugs Geocoins,etc.

 

It would confuse me too much to have them all together as 1 find.

 

I have enough trouble keeping up with the Technology on the BM's,

that is putting them all down on my own maps,calculating bearings and distances,checking azimuths.

 

Hunting Benchmarks goes way deeper than just finding them,I have alot of easy one's,and some I still have not located,still figuring,because of all the changes in datums the original OLDER Marks Like,

 

Louisiana Purchase Monument

 

or

 

CVII (Destroyed)

Brought it out of the GraveYard.

 

Now I am a part of the Mapping of the 5-4-2003 Tornado.And First Responders-Rescue and Emergency Preparedness.

 

There are 2 or 3 HUNDRED that I have found that are just as interesting and I still have not analized or gleened all the DATA from thus far.

 

I do not have a list at hand to easily go through to get you some of the others but I will name a few,

 

Plymouth National Monument

Washington D.C. Meridian

Missouri,Arkansas,Oklahoma Corner Monument

Missouri,Kansas Corner Monument

Eads Bridge, St.Louis Mo.

1800's rivets

 

There are a bunch more on the list.

 

Future,

Initial Points of the Public Lands Surveys,Historic Survey's.

Oh well enough from me.The Benhmarks go on and on and on.....

[+Sagefox]

I'm starting to think that the best thing would be to do away with the TOTAL find count only. The individual find count for each type is fine.

No, no, no, no, no. Please don't go there. We just went through that last year and I HATED it when the total count was missing. I really like the Profile/Status/Gallery pages they way they are right now.

 

Competition is not the only reason people like total counts. I use them to see how my caching/benchmarking pals from different cities are doing. Increased numbers means they are out having fun. Static total count means they have been focusing on home and work. "Soft" competitors like it when they go ahead of their friends and also like it when there friends go a head of them. Total count is an instant celebration of where we have been as well as a measure of expierence.

 

Probably the best reason for not having benchmarks included in the total find count is that non-benchmarkers, by far the majority, would strongly resent it.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Team Sagefox: yeah, I can see your point, I guess what I'm thinking is that there is always going to be somebody complaining about what should be included in total find counts. I don't think that this site will be able to please everyone, some will say no virts or no locationless much like they say no BM's (and TB's?) now. So the only fair way would be to 1- include ALL in total finds or 2- have NO total finds. I went with 2 because I thought it would be easiest as anyone should be able to add what ever finds from the categories they want into their total. I would have no problem going with 1 tho. I guess in the end it doesn't really matter too much to me, I keep track of my finds in my own way in a simple text file. Now if they ever got rid of the find counts for the individual catefories I might be a little miffed....lol.

 

I can forsee possibly needing another layer of division added to seperate the categories: 1-PHYSICAL caches (one with a log book that ultimately needs to be signed), including, traditional, multi and letterbox hybrids; 2- NON-PHYSICAL caches (no log book required), including virts, locationless, webcam and event caches; 3- TRAVEL BUGS; and 4- BENCHMARKS. Mystery caches pose a sort of problem by their very definition, but if you ask one simple question it becomes apparent what to do with them. That question being "does a log need to be signed?"- if yes it's a physical if no it's a non-physical, so in the end I would say to do away with that category all together. Comments?

Edited January 25, 2004 by Corp Of Discovery