Huge statistics

[+-CJ-]

My geocaching colleagues and me have discussed a couple of times how it was possible to log so many caches as found in one day as some players do. OK, good roads, good weather, plenty of free time, long powertrails with a distance of .1 miles between caches, good organization of a trip, I can understand this. Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible? The only idea that came into our minds was that such people actually are large geocaching teams (families?) and that each team member goes outside alone, finds a cache and signs its logbook on behalf of the whole team. Is it so? Are there any other explanations?

[+L0ne.R]

My geocaching colleagues and me have discussed a couple of times how it was possible to log so many caches as found in one day as some players do. OK, good roads, good weather, plenty of free time, long powertrails with a distance of .1 miles between caches, good organization of a trip, I can understand this. Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible? The only idea that came into our minds was that such people actually are large geocaching teams (families?) and that each team member goes outside alone, finds a cache and signs its logbook on behalf of the whole team. Is it so? Are there any other explanations?

 

* Definitely team logging, where everyone splits up and logs their finds for the team.

* Leap frogging (see post #5) 3 Cache Monty on a power trail - where you put a film canister with an already signed canister at the first location, take the FC that's there and sign it while on the way to the next cache. Drop it at spot 2 and grab FC3, sign it in the car.....rinse and repeat.

* Don't actually find every cache on a PT but log them as found (the CO is not going to check the paper logs).

Edited February 12, 2013 by l0n3 r

[+CanadianRockies]

Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible?

Try one cache per minute (or better). As well as being placed 0.1 miles apart, many caches along certain power trails are hidden very similarly (e.g., under a rock behind the nearest bush). So searchers don't have to spend very long looking.

 

Here's a video of geocachers finding three power trail caches in less than three minutes:

 

[+StarBrand]

I saw a group once that got 85 caches in about 6 hours time - or about 1 every 4.5 minutes - and it wasn't even a powertrail. Five guys all hopping out to look for the cache at well researched and mapped caches along a well planned route that minimized left hand turns.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

* Leap frogging on a power trail - where you put a film canister with an already signed canister at the first location, take the FC that's there and sign it while on the way to the next cache. Drop it at spot 2 and grab FC3, sign it in the car.....rinse and repeat.

 

That's not leap-frogging. That's container swapping, or as some people call it, three cache monte. Although it's somewhat common, one of the objections to it is that it goes against the Geocaching 101 basic "How to Geocache" guideline which states: "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." It also makes verifying that someone has signed the log of a specific cache effectively not feasible, but owners of power trails allow it.

 

Leap frogging on a power trail is when a group of two or more cachers split up and find ever other (or every third, every 10th) cache but sign a "team name" on all of them so that everyone gets credit for all of the finds.

[+bflentje]

* Leap frogging on a power trail - where you put a film canister with an already signed canister at the first location, take the FC that's there and sign it while on the way to the next cache. Drop it at spot 2 and grab FC3, sign it in the car.....rinse and repeat.

 

That's not leap-frogging. That's container swapping, or as some people call it, three cache monte. Although it's somewhat common, one of the objections to it is that it goes against the Geocaching 101 basic "How to Geocache" guideline which states: "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location." It also makes verifying that someone has signed the log of a specific cache effectively not feasible, but owners of power trails allow it.

 

Leap frogging on a power trail is when a group of two or more cachers split up and find ever other (or every third, every 10th) cache but sign a "team name" on all of them so that everyone gets credit for all of the finds.

 

Leap Frogging is only marginally more acceptable than container swapping.

[+The_Incredibles_]

5 geocaches per hour? This is nothing. I got 7 in 1 hour recently, simply because I was caching in a cache rich area with easy caches.

 

Even 1 cache every 3-5 minutes is easy enough to get, if they're all in a row. For instance, if it's a powertrail and you're going by car or bike.

[+CanadianRockies]

Leap Frogging is only marginally more acceptable than container swapping.

Really? Personally, I look at it the other way around (assuming, of course, that the cache owners approve of the swapping of same-sized containers).

[+bflentje]

Leap Frogging is only marginally more acceptable than container swapping.

Really? Personally, I look at it the other way around (assuming, of course, that the cache owners approve of the swapping of same-sized containers).

 

I don't condone either method but if I did, caches should stay in place. A power trail of 200 lame film canisters signed by a team, so long as the entire team is on the trail, doesn't bother me so much.

 

I want to see a power trail of 200 ammocans in my area some day.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Leap Frogging is only marginally more acceptable than container swapping.

Really? Personally, I look at it the other way around (assuming, of course, that the cache owners approve of the swapping of same-sized containers).

 

Notice that I didn't state my opinion on which method I, personally, would find more acceptable. Some power trail owners allow both, but I suspect if either method were used on a cache that was *not* part of a power trail, then there would be a high likelihood that the log would be deleted.

[+-CJ-]

sign a "team name" on all of them so that everyone gets credit for all of the finds.

 

AFAIK there is no team account support at geocaching.com. If John, Paul, George and Ringo already have their own accounts at the website and used to play alone but want to create a team they cannot just "combine" their accounts in any way but have to register a new one. Let it be "The Beatles". Now John goes geocaching, finds a cache, logs it at the site with "The Beatles" account. Is it practiced (and/or stipulated by any rules?) to stop at this point? I mean, "The Beatles" has its statistics increased by one find, and individual accounts haven't? Or do John, Paul, George and Ringo feel comfortable at geocaching.com to leave their personal "found it" logs in this case?

[+-CJ-]

5 geocaches per hour? This is nothing. I got 7 in 1 hour recently

 

5 geocaches per hour within a month.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

sign a "team name" on all of them so that everyone gets credit for all of the finds.

 

AFAIK there is no team account support at geocaching.com. If John, Paul, George and Ringo already have their own accounts at the website and used to play alone but want to create a team they cannot just "combine" their accounts in any way but have to register a new one. Let it be "The Beatles". Now John goes geocaching, finds a cache, logs it at the site with "The Beatles" account. Is it practiced (and/or stipulated by any rules?) to stop at this point? I mean, "The Beatles" has its statistics increased by one find, and individual accounts haven't? Or do John, Paul, George and Ringo feel comfortable at geocaching.com to leave their personal "found it" logs in this case?

 

Actually, the site does support the notion of team accounts, but typically a team account consists of several family members. Occasionally, different members of the "team" might go caching individually (for example, when one member of the team is traveling and the other still wants to find caches locally). There is also nothing stopping several people that are not related from using a team account, but what I think you're getting at is that it would provide a a single team account to be used to log caches online and automatically apply finds to individual accounts.

 

What I was talking about is when a group of cachers (John, Paul, George, and Ringo) form an adhoc "team name" (The Beatles) and use that to sign the physical logs. When each of the individuals logs the finds using their individual accounts they just state that the physical logs were signed as "The Beatles". The practice of using an adhoc team name is common, and makes sense if the purpose is to save space on the physical log or save time when physically signing the log sheets, but when Team "abc" and Team "abc" both claim they found 800 caches on some power trail it's not meaningful unless you know that both teams employed the same finding methodology.

[+-CJ-]

I see. Thank you all for replies. Was much impressed with video. As for my last question, it happens there's similar discussion in the next thread, I won't duplicate it.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I once did 90 in 7 hours solo-caching on gravel roads.

[+-CJ-]

I once did 90 in 7 hours solo-caching on gravel roads.

 

Good for you

[+sir dumil]

On a rough-ish power trail along a canal I was averaging around 3 minutes per cache.

I was by myself, driving my little car along a dirt road by the canal.

It was a little tough to keep that rate up, though.

The containers were mostly mason jars, though other types were used here and there. Fun trail!

Edited February 12, 2013 by sir dumil

[+Roman!]

I just came from Route 66. I had my daughter drive, my son would run to the cache, open it and pull out the log and I'd sign it. We were doing 70-80/hr and after 500 caches in 8 hours including some long breaks we called it a day.

 

I think a highly organized team of 4 using a vehicle with no doors can beak 2000 caches in a day without any tactics that are considered cheating.

[+313JTG]

I average about four caches per hour when I go out, but my best thus far has been 22 caches in about 70 minutes (probably 19 in an hour). This wasn't a power trail, but rather a two mile radius part that was part of a Geo-Art series. Sure most of them were LPC's, guardrails, or pine tree hides, but there were a couple of though ones too.

 

Point is, it all depends on the type of cache and how close the hides are together.

[+simpjkee]

I did a 100 cache power trail with some friends a couple days ago. It was monotonous as all get out, but we got one cache every two to three minutes according to my field notes on my GPS. I ended up with 142 throughout the whole day (my record).

 

It was 3 teams/5 people. Team #1 was two people. Team #2 was two people. Team #3 was just me.

 

Of Team #1, one was driver and one was finder on half of caches and recordkeeper on half of caches

 

Of Team #2, one was co-driver/navigator, and the other was finder on half of caches and recordkeeper on half of caches.

 

Of Team #3, I was finder on all of caches.

 

Once at GZ, I and the other finder would hop out to hunt the cache. If I spotted the cache, I would open it and hand the log to the other finder to sign all three names. Then they would put the log back in and I'd rehide it. If the other finder found it, they would open it and hand me the log and I would sign all three names. Then I would put the log back in and they would rehide it.

 

My name was on every log and I touched every log, but I only wrote my name on about 75% of the logs. I logged all of them online.

 

My standard of what a find was for me is when I physically sign my name on the logbook. (When I began caching and was in a group, we would pass around the logbook so everyone could sign it). Obviously, my standard was not totally upheld on 25% of this power trail. I didn't feel too good about it. I felt like a kid who feels peer pressured to do something that doesn't feel totally right to him, but he goes along and does it anyway. I would've much preferred to find 10 and take my time than find 100 and feel rushed and pressured to find more and more. Of course, I was only 1/5 of the group so majority ruled.

 

There were others doing the trail that day and I did see some cache shuffling/3 cache monty going on and it made me nautious. One member of the group I was in considered it and I flat out refused to participate so the idea was squashed.

[+briansnat]

I once found 6 caches in an hour, on crutches with no pre planning or power trail involved. All it takes to run up huge numbers is a power trail,the desire for numbers, stamina and the ability to endure incredible monotony

[+Roman!]

I once found 6 caches in an hour, on crutches with no pre planning or power trail involved. All it takes to run up huge numbers is a power trail,the desire for numbers, stamina and the ability to endure incredible monotony

 

Seeing as you've never done one I'm guessing you're guessing so having done one myself let me ad my $.02 worth.

 

mo·not·o·ny

/məˈnätn-ē/

Noun

Lack of variety and interest; tedious repetition and routine.

 

On the contrary, doing the route certainly did not lack variety and interest, in fact it was one of my most interesting caching experiences and I saw more cool things that day than I did in weeks of caching.

 

As more tedious repetition and routine, not even close but I could see it being such if it was a full time 8 hr/day job, kind like working on an assembly line or maybe delivering mail.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Roman!

[+Don_J]

My geocaching colleagues and me have discussed a couple of times how it was possible to log so many caches as found in one day as some players do. OK, good roads, good weather, plenty of free time, long powertrails with a distance of .1 miles between caches, good organization of a trip, I can understand this. Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible? The only idea that came into our minds was that such people actually are large geocaching teams (families?) and that each team member goes outside alone, finds a cache and signs its logbook on behalf of the whole team. Is it so? Are there any other explanations?

 

Find a cache dense area, plan carefully and don't spend time looking for difficult caches. I live in an area that is very dense in both urban caches as well as on the mountain hiking trails. It is easy to spend a day and get 30 on the trails, but with good planning, you can easily get 75-100 in the urban areas.

 

Two out of our area cachers that almost always cache together recently spent three Saturdays in our area. They easily claimed 80 caches on each day. These cachers are rare that they post their DNFs and from them and knowing the caches in my area, it is clear that they are back in the car in a matter of minutes regardless of if they find the cache or not. If they don't see a cache in the most common, "first place that you look" spot, they don't waste time that can be spent finding other caches.

 

One of these cachers has logged over 36,000 cache in 7 years. While those stats are huge, so is the percentage of micros compared to other sizes, as well as the number of traditional to other types. The only thing that is not huge is the D/T stats.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Don_J

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

 

You know the type...the ones that say "XYZ is better than sex"...because they probably rushed that too.....hahahaha.

[+Roman!]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

 

You know the type...the ones that say "XYZ is better than sex"...because they probably rushed that too.....hahahaha.

 

Coming from experience you have no clue what you're talking about and I wouldn't be surprised if your significant other agreed with me.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

 

You know the type...the ones that say "XYZ is better than sex"...because they probably rushed that too.....hahahaha.

 

Coming from experience you have no clue what you're talking about and I wouldn't be surprised if your significant other agreed with me.

Wow...you mad bro....touch a nerve? Just joking around. BTW, your assumption would be wrong.

 

Point still stands though. Take your time...don't worry about how many others have thousands and thousands of finds. All that means is they hit and run.

[Zerpersande]

Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible?

Try one cache per minute (or better). As well as being placed 0.1 miles apart, many caches along certain power trails are hidden very similarly (e.g., under a rock behind the nearest bush). So searchers don't have to spend very long looking.

 

Here's a video of geocachers finding three power trail caches in less than three minutes:

 

Guess it's something todo with friends.

[+Ike 13]

I've done at least 13 power runs (100 in a day) not on powertrails. Some took only 9 hours others took 15. How? Lots of planning. Take a populated area and run a PQ for a 20 mile radius for caches 2/2 and under. I then used GSAK to look at caches that hadn't been found in awhile or had recent DNFs and elminated any that looked hard or to be missing. I then threw the remaining caches on to Google Earth and picked areas of concentration and tried to route the quickest way to 120 or so. I usually skipped parks and any other cache where we could not park within 50 feet. By the end I aimed for 120 easy caches. I also split this list up and each member would research a set of 20-40 caches and look at hints, logs, and pictures so we knew exactly what to look for and I could put that in our notes.

 

When actually caching you just need a team of about 4 people. The navigator should punch in the next cache and turn the car around if needed and be ready to go. The other 3 should jump out and all search for the cache. Once found help get your sticker on the log. Our pace was always looking for about 10-12 an hour. We never looked for more than 5 minutes so we had about a 10% DNF rate. It took a lot of effort but it's possible with determination, planning, and a good team.

[+Ike 13]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

[+wimseyguy]

Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible?

Try one cache per minute (or better). As well as being placed 0.1 miles apart, many caches along certain power trails are hidden very similarly (e.g., under a rock behind the nearest bush). So searchers don't have to spend very long looking.

 

Here's a video of geocachers finding three power trail caches in less than three minutes:

 

Guess it's something todo with friends.

 

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!!

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

[+CanadianRockies]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together!

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

Ummmm...it certainly looks like you were trying to say it's wrong.

[4wheelin_fool]

Are there any other explanations?

 

 

Steroids.

 

 

There is also that FTF training camp in Oregon. Cell phones go off in the night and everyone bolts out the door into the woods. It has a daytime powertrail course, as well as psychological preparation, dieting, as well as hand exercises for signing logs. Tips on silencing loud lamppost covers with WD-40, as well as excuses for the police are abundant.

[Zerpersande]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together!

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

Ummmm...it certainly looks like you were trying to say it's wrong.

Speed and caching should go together if that is what you want. But don't try to tell others that is the way it should be done, try to interpret the rules so it sounds like that is required or, PLEASE HERE, don't do it yourself and then get all freaked out when somebody else does it and tell them doing so is against the rules.

[+Roman!]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

[+OZ2CPU]

a wise geocacher once said :

if you are havning fun, you are doing it right.

 

I find it funny to try all kinds of geocaching to my own limit,

on this topic,

I did try to see how many I could find same date,

and I also tried to find only one, involving about same time and work and planning (a full day of hard work)

Both trips I remember very well, and enjoy to compare,

they where both very funny, in two compleetly different ways.

Edited February 14, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

I know what I'm talking about....you don't know what I know, so you need to bug off dude! You only been here a little over a year. You are the one that doesn't have the history, experience or knowledge. Been here since 2002 (almost the beginning). Edited February 14, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+the4dirtydogs]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

I know what I'm talking about....you don't know what I know, so you need to bug off dude! You only been here a little over a year. You are the one that doesn't have the history, experience or knowledge. Been here since 2002 (almost the beginning).

Dang man you sure are trying to make some friends in here. Since your throwing out some numbers you only have a couple hundred finds in 10+ years and you talk about experience.

Edited February 14, 2013 by the4dirtydogs

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

I know what I'm talking about....you don't know what I know, so you need to bug off dude! You only been here a little over a year. You are the one that doesn't have the history, experience or knowledge. Been here since 2002 (almost the beginning).

Dang man you sure are trying to make some friends in here. Since your throwing out some numbers you only have a couple hundred finds in 10+ years and you talk about experience.

Keep in mind too that I had a long time to deal with kidney failure (on dialysis) that did not allow me to cache in large stretches. What I've logged is only part of my experience. I have closely watched the hobby for many years. I have not always logged caches either. Number of caches logged is NOT a measure of knowledge, sorry. But perhaps you think it does, and that is why this hobby at times is full of, well, I'll stop there, but lets say I feel many people have ruined the game with the "I have 3000 logged finds, so I'm better than you". I can also pretty much bet a large majority of this also goes hand-in-hand with the wealthier folks because it reflects the "I have more MONEY than you" attitude.

 

Also...why should I care about making friends here. This is the internet, I don't need validation from you or anyone else on the internet. I have REAL friends that deserve my respect, because they respect me. But if you think getting friends from on online forum is important, than I just feel sorry for you.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+the4dirtydogs]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

I know what I'm talking about....you don't know what I know, so you need to bug off dude! You only been here a little over a year. You are the one that doesn't have the history, experience or knowledge. Been here since 2002 (almost the beginning).

Dang man you sure are trying to make some friends in here. Since your throwing out some numbers you only have a couple hundred finds in 10+ years and you talk about experience.

Keep in mind too that I had a long time to deal with kidney failure (on dialysis) that did not allow me to cache in large stretches. What I've logged is only part of my experience. I have closely watched the hobby for many years. I have not always logged caches either. Number of caches logged is NOT a measure of knowledge, sorry. But perhaps you think it does, and that is why this hobby at times is full of, well, I'll stop there, but lets say I feel many people have ruined the game with the "I have 3000 logged finds, so I'm better than you". I can also pretty much bet a large majority of this also goes hand-in-hand with the wealthier folks because it reflects the "I have more MONEY than you" attitude.

 

Also...why should I care about making friends here. This is the internet, I don't need validation from you or anyone else on the internet. I have REAL friends that deserve my respect, because they respect me. But if you think getting friends from on online forum is important, than I just feel sorry for you.

I dont measure anyones numbers, I was just throwing that out there. I will say that with 140+ puzzle caches under my belt I have gained a bit of knowledge with deciphering codes and other crazy things. Also attending over 150 events, I have learned so much from just talking to other players about this game. So I guess I do kinda see the numbers as bit of knowledge.

 

I was just joking aboutthe making friends things. LMAO.

 

I never said anything about,"I have logged 3000 finds, so I'm better than you" and I never would say something like that. But you sure do think that since you've joined in 2002 that you're better than anyone that doesn't have 10 years in the game.(and watching from the sideline at that )

 

Oh by the way... call one of your friends to come give you a HUG . I think you need some...

[+The_Incredibles_]

Time for a group hug! Either that or a cookie break!

[Keystone]

After that cookie, it's time to get back on topic.

 

Threads like this always go better when people who have actually racked up huge statistics share some of their tips and tricks. Labels, stereotypes and name-calling for people with different caching styles usually gets the moderating team reaching for their padlocks and admin bricks.

[Zerpersande]

Speed and caching shouldn't be together! I mean...anyone can do it the way they want...but anyone who rushes caching must rush everything and enjoy nothing!

So it has to be one or the other? There are days where I spend 12 hours working on 1 cache and I've done days where we hit 200. Each is a different type of challenge. Some people enjoy one or the other, some people enjoy both.

Nah, not trying to dictate how anyone should cache, just commenting (in a fun way) that caching often is much more enjoyable when you take your time, not sweat the numbers, and enjoy the experience, the find, etc.

 

I understand that finding 200 caches in one day is a "challenge". However, I personally don't see the value because on the times I rushed....it just wasn't worth it.

 

To me it is like saying...anyone can build a house in a short amount of time, but is that house going to be a good one, well designed, visually appealing, etc...hell no.

 

But again...not trying to say its wrong, just something for folks to consider.

 

You sure have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

I know what I'm talking about....you don't know what I know, so you need to bug off dude! You only been here a little over a year. You are the one that doesn't have the history, experience or knowledge. Been here since 2002 (almost the beginning).

Dang man you sure are trying to make some friends in here. Since your throwing out some numbers you only have a couple hundred finds in 10+ years and you talk about experience.

Keep in mind too that I had a long time to deal with kidney failure (on dialysis) that did not allow me to cache in large stretches. What I've logged is only part of my experience. I have closely watched the hobby for many years. I have not always logged caches either. Number of caches logged is NOT a measure of knowledge, sorry. But perhaps you think it does, and that is why this hobby at times is full of, well, I'll stop there, but lets say I feel many people have ruined the game with the "I have 3000 logged finds, so I'm better than you". I can also pretty much bet a large majority of this also goes hand-in-hand with the wealthier folks because it reflects the "I have more MONEY than you" attitude.

 

Also...why should I care about making friends here. This is the internet, I don't need validation from you or anyone else on the internet. I have REAL friends that deserve my respect, because they respect me. But if you think getting friends from on online forum is important, than I just feel sorry for you.

I dont measure anyones numbers, I was just throwing that out there. I will say that with 140+ puzzle caches under my belt I have gained a bit of knowledge with deciphering codes and other crazy things. Also attending over 150 events, I have learned so much from just talking to other players about this game. So I guess I do kinda see the numbers as bit of knowledge.

 

I was just joking aboutthe making friends things. LMAO.

 

I never said anything about,"I have logged 3000 finds, so I'm better than you" and I never would say something like that. But you sure do think that since you've joined in 2002 that you're better than anyone that doesn't have 10 years in the game.(and watching from the sideline at that )

 

Oh by the way... call one of your friends to come give you a HUG . I think you need some...

One of you two is coming across as a real piece of work.

[+the4dirtydogs]

750 caches was the most caches that I have ever found in a day. This trip was on the famous E.T. Highway that was split up in 2 days of caching. Just 2 cachers in one JEEP for around 12-14 hours each day. So basically you need a lot of time and a lot of easy caches on a powertrail to get these HUGE numbers in a day.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

One of you two is coming across as a real piece of work.

Just hashing out some opinions...that's all. Not everything has to be played out as rainbows and unicorns. Edited February 15, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+Roman!]

After that cookie, it's time to get back on topic.

 

Threads like this always go better when people who have actually racked up huge statistics share some of their tips and tricks. Labels, stereotypes and name-calling for people with different caching styles usually gets the moderating team reaching for their padlocks and admin bricks.

 

It's all about seconds, every second you can save per cache on the E.T. highway will save you 33 minutes. Get a vehicle with no doors or open doors and you can save 2 seconds/cache. Figure out how to stop in the best spot could means 2 - 5 seconds/cache.

 

With 2 kids, one driving with a learners licence not doing the greatest job of stopping and having to open doors we did average about 70 caches/hour. Grab a team of 4, alternate duties to keep everyone fresh and a vehicle with no doors 100 caches+/hour shouldn't be impossible. I think the E.T. highway could be done in one day without leapfrogging, 3 cache monte or any other "cheating" needed.

 

P.S. - My qualifications: I have done a power trail.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Roman!

[+cpine]

Nevertheless, some simple calculations show that a person logged e.g. about 5 geocaches per hour. (Once I saw a profile of a cacher who did one cache in about 3-5 minutes). How is it possible?

Try one cache per minute (or better). As well as being placed 0.1 miles apart, many caches along certain power trails are hidden very similarly (e.g., under a rock behind the nearest bush). So searchers don't have to spend very long looking.

 

Here's a video of geocachers finding three power trail caches in less than three minutes:

 

 

Perfect answer to his question! Isn't the record something like 400 plus in one day? Amazing... not something I relish doing but still WOW!

[Zerpersande]

750 caches was the most caches that I have ever found in a day. This trip was on the famous E.T. Highway that was split up in 2 days of caching. Just 2 cachers in one JEEP for around 12-14 hours each day. So basically you need a lot of time and a lot of easy caches on a powertrail to get these HUGE numbers in a day.

That's pretty amazing.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I just worked on part of the Route 66 series yesterday. We had a find rate of over 60/hr for the first couple of hours. It then dropped a bit as we were also picking up any non-Route 66 caches along the way. Found our first cache at 6:39 am (sunrise) and our last at 5:35 pm (sunset). Total of 473 caches (avg = 43 caches/hr). So, yes, it can be done.

 

Friend of mine did the Route 66 in one day. Total of 806 caches. 6:00 am to midnight (44.7/hr). Record for one day is much higher than that though.

[Zerpersande]

I just worked on part of the Route 66 series yesterday. We had a find rate of over 60/hr for the first couple of hours. It then dropped a bit as we were also picking up any non-Route 66 caches along the way. Found our first cache at 6:39 am (sunrise) and our last at 5:35 pm (sunset). Total of 473 caches (avg = 43 caches/hr). So, yes, it can be done.

 

Friend of mine did the Route 66 in one day. Total of 806 caches. 6:00 am to midnight (44.7/hr). Record for one day is much higher than that though.

Not my idea of fun. But I don't think that just b/c I don't get it that some kind of rule needs to be enforced about the sociological/asthetic value of a cache. Now, If I were around that, I would like to be able to tell what kind of cache it was so I coud avoid it/them.

 

Where I am the average cache in the city isn't much. But there are enough interesting caches, whether by placement or design, to keep it worthwhile. And there's always the more rural areas with historical POIs and more scenic views. Of course the types of caches are the same. Being able to find 1/min just doesn't interest me. It's already too easy at times.

 

But whatever floats your boat. Dogmatic adherence to vague rules is annoying.