Please Help My Disbelief!

[+webscouter.]

Anyone who thinks you can't do 15 caches in a day and remember them is invited to spend a day at work with me. You can start the day with me and we will drive across Kansas, finish all my work and enjoy 10+ caches.

[+AuntieWeasel]

-- Bring a stuffed badger with you.  I cannot overemphasize the importance of this.

Mine must be broken. I think his daily record is three.

 

[+carleenp]

-- Bring a stuffed badger with you.  I cannot overemphasize the importance of this.

Mine must be broken. I think his daily record is three.

 

Nice badger!!!!!

[Lawcomic]

And why, exactly, do we care how many caches other people claim to have found?

 

Is there a prize I am unaware of?

[+Stunod]

And why, exactly, do we care how many caches other people claim to have found?

 

Is there a prize I am unaware of?

Why do YOU care? Sounds like you don't. That's OK.

[+AtoZ]

Well number are dependent upon DENSITY, okay it was said before and probable will be said again. I think we average 10 to 20 a Sunday bot most those are multies or puzzle caches as the person I cache with has found almost all the simple caches. So it can be be more finds then just a single log.

cheers

[+AuntieWeasel]

Nice badger!!!!! 

Thanks. I bet you say that to all the weasels.

[+sept1c_tank]

As to it being an age thing, it may be - the young whippersnappers can rarely keep up!

 

I am 50, lost a leg in '98 and cache on crutches, broke my neck in '02 and am in chronic pain all the time, especially when geocaching for long periods! Most of the folks I cached with this weekend were over 50, many over 60. We had a number of "young folks" from 30 to 50 jump on and off the train at various times but nobody under 50 lasted more than 5 or 6 hours.

 

Hear, hear! I am over 50 (almost 60) and the whippersnappers (schmippersnappers) always seem to peter out before me, too.

 

Regarding guides and navigators, since I am attempting no records, they are always welcome as companions, consultants, etc., but most of the fun I find in caching comes from doing those chores successfully, myself.

 

Why, just this week, I chose to seek a (long) drive-up cache the hard way; I paddled 12 miles round trip in the dark, lost my GPSr 1/4 miles from the cache, and logged a DNF in spite of finding the clue.

 

I spent a total of 12 hours guiding myself into the (my) record book and I'm proud of it. Let's see you beat that record (schmecord)!

[+WalruZ]

Speaking to the 2nd part of your post - I often cache with the #2 (by finds) cacher on the lists, and he is quite driven. A 40-50 cache day is nothing unusual for this fellow. The key things I see is that he plans everything out and hits the road early and doesn't stop until late. That, and he tries to find something every day.

 

He is also perfectly willing to go on an all-day difficult terrain hike and find only one or two caches. He loves the sport, all aspects of it.

[+fishingfools]

Team CHB hit 109 in about 18 hours in Nashville.

 

Also I'd like to add:

 

BADGER, BADGER, BADGER

[+CarlGurt]

I'm really glad I asked this question, and am very pleased at the education I got from reading the responses. Here, in southern Maine, the "cache density" is, compared to some other places, low. My friend Rick & I, "The Two Reprobates" are retired, have been geocaching since September, and try to do it once per week.

 

We've never tried for speed, and I doubt we could go much faster anyway. This winter, we've cross-country skied to what caches we could get to. We've kayaked and boated to islands in Boston Harbor, and really had a lot of fun.

 

Very few of our caches are as close to each other as a 1/2 mile, most are several miles apart and also require at least some hiking, and usually, at least some time to find.

 

So it seems that due both to our circumstances, and our own preferences, we'll never be anywhere near any sort of record holder. However, I can understand the motivation to set a record. Clearly, there are different 'styles' of geocaching, and room for all to enjoy different aspects of the sport.

 

CarlGurt

[+carleenp]

I'm really glad I asked this question, and am very pleased at the education I got from reading the responses. Here, in southern Maine, the "cache density" is, compared to some other places, low. My friend Rick & I, "The Two Reprobates" are retired, have been geocaching since September, and try to do it once per week.

 

We've never tried for speed, and I doubt we could go much faster anyway. This winter, we've cross-country skied to what caches we could get to. We've kayaked and boated to islands in Boston Harbor, and really had a lot of fun.

 

Very few of our caches are as close to each other as a 1/2 mile, most are several miles apart and also require at least some hiking, and usually, at least some time to find.

 

So it seems that due both to our circumstances, and our own preferences, we'll never be anywhere near any sort of record holder. However, I can understand the motivation to set a record. Clearly, there are different 'styles' of geocaching, and room for all to enjoy different aspects of the sport.

 

CarlGurt

Yep, I bet Maine is much like Nebraska in density. I kind of like our low density here actually. I tend to hit numbers when I travel, although I had a mini run by accident in rural (think middle of nowhere) Nebraska recently. It was one of those cache dense small areas and when I got home and counted up 28 on the day I was surprised since it didn't feel like we did that many. We were having fun and just kept going and going....

 

I hope to hit a few southern Maine caches this September. I hear it is quite nice there.

 

In the end, yes, it is about fun. And some find fun in only certain kinds of caching, whether that be a few difficult hikes, or only certain types of caches, or a bunch of numbers runs. Then others do different things at different times (that is me). Nothing wrong with any of them!

[+Agent K]

My area was low density until me and my dad started hiding. Now lots of people are hiding.

[+The Leprechauns]

This winter, we've cross-country skied to what caches we could get to. We've kayaked and boated to islands in Boston Harbor, and really had a lot of fun.

 

Very few of our caches are as close to each other as a 1/2 mile, most are several miles apart and also require at least some hiking, and usually, at least some time to find.

That sounds WONDERFUL!

 

Thanks for listening to the discussion.

[+reveritt]

Those who like to play the game this way should take the time to repack and rehide the caches properly. I have seen some caches that were treated very carelessly by people who had just burned through.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!

 

I have seen some caches that were treated very carelessly by people who had just burned through.

 

My experience has been just the opposite - when caching with 5 or 20 people you never met until a few hours ago you are VERY careful to do it right!

 

Cheaters and careless cachers are not found in such groups, where everyone is on their best caching behavior! In fact, I'd rather have my caches found by a group than an individual - I KNOW then that they'll be well-treated and rehidden nicely!

[+mtn-man]

Team CHB hit 109 in about 18 hours in Nashville.

 

Also I'd like to add:

 

BADGER, BADGER, BADGER

I was a week or so behind you. I kept seeing your logs.

 

I did 100 caches exactly in 11 hours and 5 minutes. My goal was to time myself on 100 caches. I was at 97 after about 10.25 hours but we drove to the other side of town for the last three because they were awesome caches. Homeless Bathtub was my 100th. I was curious what it would be like to do this run by myself and to be the only person looking for the cache most of the time. I think I had about 5 that I gave up on after about 10 to 15 minutes. I found one that rolled down an embankment and got it replaced back in the right place as well. JoGPS was my escort and did look for a few with me since he had not found some of them yet.

 

Not a record pace, but it is interesting to average a cache every 6.6 minutes.

 

Badgers are everywhere this year. I see log after log mentioning them.

 

I think I need to get one of those things. The only thing is... the puppymonster would rip it to shreds if he got his paws on it.

 

(AlabamaRambler, I saw UHF too. Great movie.)

[+fishingfools]

We were guideless, but had mapping software and sense of adventure. Hope you had as much fun as we did. We enjoyed homeless bathtub.

[+reveritt]

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!

 

I have seen some caches that were treated very carelessly by people who had just burned through.

 

My experience has been just the opposite - when caching with 5 or 20 people you never met until a few hours ago you are VERY careful to do it right!

 

Cheaters and careless cachers are not found in such groups,...

No doubt that is true, but sometimes folks who are trying to maximize the number of finds in one day work alone. I have been behind a cahcer who was swiftly trying to get to a milestone, and left a messy trail.

[+carleenp]

I have been behind cachers that left a messy trail when they were not trying to reach any milestone at all. I don't know that it makes a big difference. Either people are careful with caches or they aren't. I think the habit carries over to whatever situation they might be in.

 

I do see where there are concerns with cache machines and such where a large number of people visit an area repeatedly in one day. I figure that could draw attention to the cache location, create paths etc. But that is really a slightly different topic that has been discussed before.

[+BigFurryMonster]

Nice article on the 246 record:

 

http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/nov/people3.asp

[+Scott Johnson]

I only know my own physical limits. Which I like to think is pretty above average. :-)

 

I have to laugh at some people's find numbers....in the thousands in a short period of time...and wonder if they have jobs, or if caching is their career? When I first started Geocaching in 2002 I thought there was a rule about caches being close to each other. I don’t recall the minimum distance, but it was in the .5 mile range or better so as not to over saturate a park. Now I am finding them within .1 miles of each other.

 

I had one guy tell me he was such a good Geocacher that he could leave his unit in the car and walk into the woods and find his cache. Evidently he has some sort of Geo-Psychic sense. He was mad at me for posting different coordinates on his cache when I found it. Guess his psychic satellite was not broadcasting that day.

 

Anyway...it’s just a game. So I will only compete against myself and silently admire the prowess of our Professional Geocachers. :-)

[+The Leprechauns]

There has never been a .5 mile separation rule, although there's areas where it'd make a lot of sense to have one. The minimum distance has been .1 miles ever since the guideline was adopted. And some people cry that this is too limiting!