Jump to content

Is LOOPING a new caching term?


Ma & Pa

Recommended Posts

I saw mention of looping on another site. Apparently some cachers keep track of the number of times they fill the fizzy chart and they call it looping.

 

Here is someone who has filled each square at least 60 times

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=a48a4f9f-8557-417b-98be-14c575e7f656&wid=813ffca4-a838-47c0-8c3a-047707f317ba&ds=2

 

 

PAul

 

What is cool is that the relative number of finds is really low for such an achievement. The average number of finds in each grid square is 102, so to have at least 60 in each one is pretty amazing.

Link to comment
Is LOOPING a new caching term?
It wouldn't be the first term that was used in a small sub-community, but which few outside that community were aware of.

 

Looping (to me) is when the CO was smart (or kind enough) to be sure his series ends up back at parking. :)
To me, the term "looping" refers to the rallyemaster of a car rallye arranging for different cars to follow different routes (including one or more routes that form a long loop), but for all the different routes to eventually converge so that all cars end up back together on the same route. But I'm more interested in writing car rallyes than in completing a grid over and over and over and...
Link to comment

Another that i've noticed on some caches I've found

 

http://www.geocachin...b5-076b50e0c54f

 

There are some caching maniacs out there

WOW over 500 5/5 caches and at least 60 in each square

Wow indeed. If I found every 5/5 cache within a 100 mile radius I'd only have 30 5/5 caches. .

I'll just be happy to finally get one.

Visit Salt Lake City, Utah. There are 149 5/5 caches within 100 miles of that city. Most of them are relatively easy challenge caches.

Link to comment

Another that i've noticed on some caches I've found

 

http://www.geocachin...b5-076b50e0c54f

 

There are some caching maniacs out there

WOW over 500 5/5 caches and at least 60 in each square

Wow indeed. If I found every 5/5 cache within a 100 mile radius I'd only have 30 5/5 caches. .

I'll just be happy to finally get one.

Visit Salt Lake City, Utah. There are 149 5/5 caches within 100 miles of that city. Most of them are relatively easy challenge caches.

 

Then I'd bet they aren't true 5/5 caches if they are "relatively easy".

Link to comment

Visit Salt Lake City, Utah. There are 149 5/5 caches within 100 miles of that city. Most of them are relatively easy challenge caches.

 

Had challenge caches been a thing when the original fizzy challenge was invented (see what I did there?) we would probably have excluded them.

 

And I say that as one who loves challenge caches. However, I completed my fizzy without using any.

Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

 

Why isn't a boat special equipment? What do you think should qualify?

Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

 

Why isn't a boat special equipment? What do you think should qualify?

 

I guess there's a bit of a disconnect in the terrain rating system when we get into "specialized equipment". Scrambling up a steep, rocky hillside for two miles with nothing but the clothes on one's back may earn one a 4 or 4.5 star terrain rating...while hopping into a kayak to cross a slow moving river to a sandy island earns a person 5 terrain stars. The amount of effort required may be significantly more...or significantly less from a 4.5 star to a 5 star rating. This differs from every other increase in terrain rating, starting at 1T going all the way up to 4.5T where the terrain (theoretically) gets more and more difficult to navigate.

Link to comment

I guess there's a bit of a disconnect in the terrain rating system when we get into "specialized equipment". Scrambling up a steep, rocky hillside for two miles with nothing but the clothes on one's back may earn one a 4 or 4.5 star terrain rating...while hopping into a kayak to cross a slow moving river to a sandy island earns a person 5 terrain stars. The amount of effort required may be significantly more...or significantly less from a 4.5 star to a 5 star rating. This differs from every other increase in terrain rating, starting at 1T going all the way up to 4.5T where the terrain (theoretically) gets more and more difficult to navigate.

I've always rolled my eyes over that as well. According to the guidelines, "Please try to rate your cache accurately. One is the easiest. Five is the hardest." But then they contradict that statement by suggesting T5 is the proper rating for caches that might need specialized equipment (and D5 for specialized knowledge/skills).

 

Back when there weren't any attributes, I could sort of understand using the 5 rating as a flag to warn people that something specialized was needed. But not any longer.

Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

 

Why isn't a boat special equipment? What do you think should qualify?

 

I guess there's a bit of a disconnect in the terrain rating system when we get into "specialized equipment". Scrambling up a steep, rocky hillside for two miles with nothing but the clothes on one's back may earn one a 4 or 4.5 star terrain rating...while hopping into a kayak to cross a slow moving river to a sandy island earns a person 5 terrain stars. The amount of effort required may be significantly more...or significantly less from a 4.5 star to a 5 star rating. This differs from every other increase in terrain rating, starting at 1T going all the way up to 4.5T where the terrain (theoretically) gets more and more difficult to navigate.

 

Although the use of an automatic T5 rating when specialized equipment is required has been in use so long that it's never going to be changed I basically agree with you. The issue I have is that when an automatic T5 rating is used for a cache which "requires" a boat there is no distinction between a cache which might be on an island in a small pond (which could be accessible using a $10 inflatable pool toy) and a cache on an island a mile and a half from shore in the open ocean that requires navigating through breaking surf and strong currents. What ends up happening is that some end up applying the difficulty of the terrain to the D rating.

 

IMHO, a lot of 5/5 rated caches are rated that way because the CO wants to own a 5/5 rated cache.

 

 

Link to comment
Scrambling up a steep, rocky hillside for two miles with nothing but the clothes on one's back may earn one a 4 or 4.5 star terrain rating...while hopping into a kayak to cross a slow moving river to a sandy island earns a person 5 terrain stars.
It's less of an issue for those of us who don't consider stars something to be earned by finders, but rather a tool for the cache owner to communicate with potential seekers.
Link to comment
Scrambling up a steep, rocky hillside for two miles with nothing but the clothes on one's back may earn one a 4 or 4.5 star terrain rating...while hopping into a kayak to cross a slow moving river to a sandy island earns a person 5 terrain stars.
It's less of an issue for those of us who don't consider stars something to be earned by finders, but rather a tool for the cache owner to communicate with potential seekers.

 

I dunno, even forgetting the whole "grid" thing, sometimes it feels like an actual accomplishment when one can get a four star cache that actually deserves the four star rating. So yeah, I think "earning" can be a part of it from the perspective of the cacher. Just like you might feel a sense of accomplishment from being the first person to find a particularly infamous, high-difficulty hide. I don't necessarily need a grid to tell me I earned something. Sometimes just knowing you climbed a treacherous mountain path that you otherwise never would have known about (or even tried if you had) is enough.

 

Yeah...it's a rare thing to both care about that stuff and find a cache that may actually deserve a high rating...but it shouldn't be ignored or discounted.

Link to comment

I saw mention of looping on another site. Apparently some cachers keep track of the number of times they fill the fizzy chart and they call it looping.

 

Here is someone who has filled each square at least 60 times

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=a48a4f9f-8557-417b-98be-14c575e7f656&wid=813ffca4-a838-47c0-8c3a-047707f317ba&ds=2

 

 

PAul

 

I did not see it mentioned yet, so..

 

I believe "Looping" is referring to the "Project-GC" web site. The site allows you to do searches and adding a "Loop" will add depth to the search. Each loop requiring an additional find for each place in a grid.

Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

 

Why isn't a boat special equipment? What do you think should qualify?

 

Guess my opinion is based on the fact that so many people down here own or have access to a boat of some sort. Boats are pretty common things to see around here and they don't require a lot of expertise to use. Scuba, rock and pole/tree climbing gear, a parachute :P , on the other hand,,, usually involve proper training and require more physical ability.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

 

Why isn't a boat special equipment? What do you think should qualify?

 

Guess my opinion is based on the fact that so many people down here own or have access to a boat of some sort. Boats are pretty common things to see around here and they don't require a lot of expertise to use. Scuba, rock and pole/tree climbing gear, a parachute :P , on the other hand,,, usually involve proper training and require more physical ability.

 

Expertise is accounted for in the difficulty rating.

 

Equipment is accounted for in terrain.

 

These are simple concepts.

 

Neither rating is a score for the finder. It is information to help seekers know what to prepare for.

Link to comment

Looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is a general term for any situation where you either follow the same steps and/or get the same type of results over and over in a continual repeated fashion so when someone asks you what looping is, you can tell them that looping is ...

Link to comment

It's never lost on me how much harder 4/4 or 4.5/4.5 caches are than 5/5 caches.

 

Ain't it the truth!

 

Down here, one problem is terrain overrating when GS makes us rate a cache at 5 because special equipment is needed. Imo, a boat is not special equipment. I have several caches like this where a boat/kayak/canoe is needed to access the cache. Some of these 5 terrains end up being park and grabs once the person is in the boat. :rolleyes:

 

Challenges, which i do enjoy, unfortunately have had bad side affects. I've seen many caches set up primarily to help challengers that have totally inaccurate ratings. It's pretty sad when a challenge ends up not being a challenge at all because of this silliness.

 

I've never heard looping refer to anything geocaching so no, it's not a new caching term down this way.

 

By the way, in the link above and in his ongoing list of stats, i inadvertently noticed that one hider has placed over 8000 caches. :blink: Yep, we definitely have some dedicated cachers out there...

 

Why isn't a boat special equipment? What do you think should qualify?

 

Guess my opinion is based on the fact that so many people down here own or have access to a boat of some sort. Boats are pretty common things to see around here and they don't require a lot of expertise to use. Scuba, rock and pole/tree climbing gear, a parachute :P , on the other hand,,, usually involve proper training and require more physical ability.

 

Expertise is accounted for in the difficulty rating.

 

Equipment is accounted for in terrain.

 

These are simple concepts.

 

Neither rating is a score for the finder. It is information to help seekers know what to prepare for.

 

Been doing this for a long time and yes, they are simple concepts. Expertise to climb a mountain goes into the terrain rating. Equipment needed to climb that mountain go into the terrain rating. How hard the cache is to locate once you make it up the mountain is where the difficulty rating comes in.

 

I'm not sure where score comes in with all this.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

Expertise is accounted for in the difficulty rating.

 

Equipment is accounted for in terrain.

 

These are simple concepts.

So, if I create a cache that requires both SCUBA equipment and SCUBA expertise, then I should rate it a 5/5? This rating system just got even more absurd.

 

Why don't I just use the terrain rating to indicate how much physical effort is needed to get to the coordinates (1=not much, 5=lots) and the difficulty rating to indicate how much time/effort is needed to find the cache and sign the log (1=not much, 5=lots)? Then I could use attributes to indicate that a boat is recommended, SCUBA gear would be useful, or climbing equipment might be a good idea.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Expertise is accounted for in the difficulty rating.

 

Equipment is accounted for in terrain.

 

These are simple concepts.

So, if I create a cache that requires both SCUBA equipment and SCUBA expertise, then I should rate it a 5/5? This rating system just got even more absurd.

 

Why don't I just use the terrain rating to indicate how much physical effort is needed to get to the coordinates (1=not much, 5=lots) and the difficulty rating to indicate how much time/effort is needed to find the cache and sign the log (1=not much, 5=lots)? Then I could use attributes to indicate that a boat is recommended, SCUBA gear would be useful, or climbing equipment might be a good idea.

 

It's up to you, and I do see your point with regards to SCUBA caches. The terrain/difficult rating system isn't an exact science, so as the cache owner you're the one who would have to consider what you want the rating to be and why.

 

The important this is that you recognize that these features are meant to be informative and that you make a sincere effort to make your cache listing helpful to seekers. These ratings aren't scores or awards.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

I think the 5T for special equipment has been around for longer than many of the specialized attributes that can now be applied to indicate special equipment. But the 5T for special equipment thing is still being used.

I think if the attributes for special equipment existed since the beginning, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is now, if at all, and 5 could go back to meaning just "very very difficult terrain". In that case you could publish a 2/2 island cache if the container was hidden like a 2/2 on mainland, but with the attribute for Boat Required also set.

 

This would of course require people to more naturally examine (and set) the attributes of a cache, just as essentially as they view and rate the D and T of a cache. That, I think, is the biggest hurdle. Too many caches are still published with zero attributes applied where they would be useful.

 

If attributes are never required, or required to be accurate (understandably this would be a major hurdle to enforce), then T5 is the next best 'fallback' to indicate an essential seeking component - using cache properties that everyone (save a tiny fraction, hopefully less) observe when seeking.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I think the 5T for special equipment has been around for longer than many of the specialized attributes that can now be applied to indicate special equipment. But the 5T for special equipment thing is still being used.

I think if the attributes for special equipment existed since the beginning, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is now, if at all, and 5 could go back to meaning just "very very difficult terrain". In that case you could publish a 2/2 island cache if the container was hidden like a 2/2 on mainland, but with the attribute for Boat Required also set.

 

This would of course require people to more naturally examine (and set) the attributes of a cache, just as essentially as they view and rate the D and T of a cache. That, I think, is the biggest hurdle. Too many caches are still published with zero attributes applied where they would be useful.

 

If attributes are never required, or required to be accurate (understandably this would be a major hurdle to enforce), then T5 is the next best 'fallback' to indicate an essential seeking component - using cache properties that everyone (save a tiny fraction, hopefully less) observe when seeking.

 

I don't really advocate for changing the system...just pointing out something inconsistent in the terrain rating system.

Link to comment

Sorry, didn't mean to imply there was advocation for changing the system :grin:, just looking at what a system might have looked like were it in existence as it is now but from the getgo... 5T might actually mean 5 out of 5 for terrain difficulty instead of implying an additional property that is redundantly available via attributes.

Link to comment

I think the 5T for special equipment has been around for longer than many of the specialized attributes that can now be applied to indicate special equipment. But the 5T for special equipment thing is still being used.

I think if the attributes for special equipment existed since the beginning, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is now, if at all, and 5 could go back to meaning just "very very difficult terrain". In that case you could publish a 2/2 island cache if the container was hidden like a 2/2 on mainland, but with the attribute for Boat Required also set.

 

This would of course require people to more naturally examine (and set) the attributes of a cache, just as essentially as they view and rate the D and T of a cache. That, I think, is the biggest hurdle. Too many caches are still published with zero attributes applied where they would be useful.

 

If attributes are never required, or required to be accurate (understandably this would be a major hurdle to enforce), then T5 is the next best 'fallback' to indicate an essential seeking component - using cache properties that everyone (save a tiny fraction, hopefully less) observe when seeking.

 

The attributes issue is definitely a two-way street. Lots of cacher owners don't add them to their caches when they ought to, but with the way the site has moved toward fast grab caching with no time for details, too many cachers don't look at attributes either.

 

It's actually pretty sad to see how many people either totally ignore this thoughtful system that is meant to help people find caches that suit their ability and tastes, or worse, turn it into another version of the numbers game that has been so detrimental to the community.

Link to comment

I think the 5T for special equipment has been around for longer than many of the specialized attributes that can now be applied to indicate special equipment. But the 5T for special equipment thing is still being used.

I think if the attributes for special equipment existed since the beginning, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is now, if at all, and 5 could go back to meaning just "very very difficult terrain". In that case you could publish a 2/2 island cache if the container was hidden like a 2/2 on mainland, but with the attribute for Boat Required also set.

 

This would of course require people to more naturally examine (and set) the attributes of a cache, just as essentially as they view and rate the D and T of a cache. That, I think, is the biggest hurdle. Too many caches are still published with zero attributes applied where they would be useful.

 

If attributes are never required, or required to be accurate (understandably this would be a major hurdle to enforce), then T5 is the next best 'fallback' to indicate an essential seeking component - using cache properties that everyone (save a tiny fraction, hopefully less) observe when seeking.

 

The attributes issue is definitely a two-way street. Lots of cacher owners don't add them to their caches when they ought to, but with the way the site has moved toward fast grab caching with no time for details, too many cachers don't look at attributes either.

 

It's actually pretty sad to see how many people either totally ignore this thoughtful system that is meant to help people find caches that suit their ability and tastes, or worse, turn it into another version of the numbers game that has been so detrimental to the community.

 

People tend to ignore them because many of them can be pretty subjective...just like the terrain or difficulty ratings. "Tourist friendly" or "good for kids" means different things for different people. Heck...I'm tempted to put one near the zoo and give it the "dangerous animals" attribute.

Link to comment

To bring it back to attributes specific to special equipment, if the attributes were reliably accurate and easily/regularly viewed when searching, then T5 could be made to mean exactly what it implies. But it's a big hurdle to get to that point from here since practically speaking the attributes are entirely optional and therefore not wholely reliable, so defining the rating to imply the special requirement attribute at 5 is the current resolution.

 

It sort of sucks, but yeah as said earlier, it just means that we're naturally inclined to consider a T4.5 as all-around potentially much harder than T5 (which is typically made easier merely by having the needed special physical equipment). The D rating is similar, but I think special knowledge is much more accessible to more people and more widespread than special physical equipment; so a D4.5 may be harder than a D5, but I think the slope is a little smoother than that of the T.

Link to comment

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...