› Forums › Geocaching in Wisconsin › General › E.T. Series in Nevada Archived
- This topic has 16 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
uws22.
-
AuthorPosts
-
03/01/2011 at 11:18 pm #1731612
The 1000 cache highway series has just been archived. I am wondering how everybody feels about that. I personally didn’t like the idea of it so I am glad to see it go.
03/02/2011 at 12:41 am #1943911@The Goldie Diggers wrote:
The 1000 cache highway series has just been archived. I am wondering how everybody feels about that. I personally didn’t like the idea of it so I am glad to see it go.
Me Too…
03/02/2011 at 2:51 am #1943912We’re going to the Las Vegas area in a few months. We talked about the E.T. caches and both decided we were not interested. For us geocaching is more about the adventure/journey than it is the destination, the “treasure,” or the numbers. I do like the challenge of “challenge” caches but not running up numbers. However I recognize that different people like different things about caching, so for those who like the idea of finding 1,014 caches in two days, more power to them. But they won’t be able to do it in Nevada anymore. By the way Martin what are you doing on these boards? 😮
03/02/2011 at 2:57 am #1943913You know, I don’t ever like to say “never” and the ET Highway was an example of that. When we heard of it, our initial reaction was “what the…?” Those who know us know the stuff we relish is the classic hike or paddle or whatever, and the guardrails are found along the way to get to those. But we still do those guardrails. 😉
When friends invited us to join them on this escapade, I figured I could try it. While not something I have any great desire to repeat, for this kind of “run,” it took us to a very lightly traveled highway in a starkly beautiful area with some history to go with it. It’s easy to say “I would never do that” and many of us like to think we seek quality, and we do. But sometimes, like Halloween, it’s fun to step out of character and be someone else, and this was a decent way to do that. It’s a shame that the actions of some ruined it for everyone else, but you could see it coming.
I have seen the sport change immensely since we started and like most things in life, nothing stays the same and we all long for the good old days. Honestly, with all the things going on in the world, this is the least of my concerns (which of course is easy to say, since I had the chance to do the series).
03/02/2011 at 11:52 pm #1943914I would have loved to do that. Everyone plays differently, but I like the numbers. Still, with that being said I enjoy the difficult time consuming ones more then anything, but I still dont mind seeing a 1000 smilies in a row. With nothing else in the desert I am sad to see this go.. Looks like I am the only one who shares this feeling ( much like my political belief on whats going on in madison hehe )
03/03/2011 at 12:11 am #1943915Actually, Neon, there are a lot of us who hate to see any cache get archived. As one who got called upon to help with the task, I can say that it was not pleasant. The issue here was that many of the finders were not respectful of their surroundings, ruining it for everyone else. When people seek numbers to the exclusion of all else, we will get these situations. I only blame the owners to the extent that maybe they should have anticipated these idiots.
03/03/2011 at 8:52 pm #1943916I had 2 reasons for not liking the series. #1 I feared the odds were that someone was going to get hit by a car at some point, making that many stops on a highway and that would be very bad for our sports reputation.
#2 I am really into stats. to me running out there to get a quick 1000 finds was like Barry Bonds breaking the HR record on steroids.03/03/2011 at 9:19 pm #1943917@The Goldie Diggers wrote:
Like Barry Bonds breaking the HR record on steroids.
Don’t forget – many people don’t have any “issues” with this either.
03/03/2011 at 9:23 pm #1943918Here’s an interesting thought on this whole thing. What if the caches would have been placed in a large open (and public) area of the desert in a large grid pattern? The caches could be arranged 100 / square mile requiring only 10 squre miles to contain all 1000 caches.
Safety? – Should be almost a mute point because they aren’t along the roadway.
Numbers? – A 1000 caches is still a 1000 caches.I’m not suggesting I’d be a fan of this approach either, but …
03/03/2011 at 9:43 pm #1943919The portion of the caches on highway 6 were a safety risk, in my opinion, but the first 900 on 375? We traveled during daylight only, and if we saw 10 other cars that 7-8 hours, I’d be surprised.
As for stats? We all enjoy them, but we all know they don’t mean a whole lot, no matter how you look at them. Sure we grabbed a big bunch, but I’d hold our D/T up, too. We do all right there, considering we seem to have this little problem with going out and getting whatever is in our path on a regular basis. 😉
Our own stats, other than what we chose to post, have been hidden because they’re for our own fun only. Like I said….there’s all kinds of ways for folks of all types to have fun at this, and it’s a shame that some had to mess it up for those who love this kind of approach. There are many who do.
03/03/2011 at 10:52 pm #1943920@CodeJunkie wrote:
Here’s an interesting thought on this whole thing. What if the caches would have been placed in a large open (and public) area of the desert in a large grid pattern? The caches could be arranged 100 / square mile requiring only 10 square miles to contain all 1000 caches.
Safety? – Should be almost a mute point because they aren’t along the roadway.
Numbers? – A 1000 caches is still a 1000 caches.I’m not suggesting I’d be a fan of this approach either, but …
Assuming they were laid out in a square, you would need a 3.1 mile square area, which you would need to traverse 31.25 times to complete, assuming 32 caches in each row, plus 3.1 miles walking between rows. That adds up to a 100 mile walk. Something tells me that there would not be a lot of takers for finding these (even using a dune buggy or similar vehicle). You could probably reduce the distance somewhat by placing them in a spiral pattern inside a circle, but I am much too lazy to do that calculation.
Remember that the idea of this “series” was for people to get a bunch of finds in a relatively short period of time. Placing them in an area that would actually require some sort of physical fitness, wilderness survival skills, or even off-road driving skills would not meet the goals of these particular cache placers. If their goal was to showcase the desert, you can imagine a series with caches every couple miles at sites of particular interest. Of course, there are already lots of caches out there which do that.
That said, these caches were placed within the guidelines (with the exception of permission from the land managers, apparently) and are not different from any other geocaches with respect to “counting”. This is why people create things like the Deep Southwest Geocaching Project, which was introduced to me by my friend, UWS22. If the concept of the ET trail offends you, you might want to consider setting up something like this in the midwest.
03/04/2011 at 1:27 am #1943921Good catch (or so I thought) Initially I thought my math was flawed, but after looking at it we’re both right. 3.1 miles x 3.1 miles is about 10 square miles. I used the square mileage and I think you used the length of one side of the same square.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting this as an alternative, but simply stating an alternative for a numbers run. I’m also not going to figure the math on the shortest possible route for 1000 caches that are all a minimum of 528′ apart. I think the estimate of 100 miles is pretty accurate for this regardless of how they’re arranged.
I also “get” what they were trying to accomplish and must admit that if I was in the area and had a day this would have been a fun excursion. If nothing else just to say “I did it” (or part of it). To me it’s like some of the other “tourist” trap type things (i.e. if you’re traveling through South Dakota you may just stop at the Corn Palace or Wall Drug just because you’re there – but that would be getting way off topic).
In essence, variety is good for the sport because it offers something for everyone. This was just one of those that didn’t quite work as the placers had hoped. Shame on them for not coordinating this with the DOT (if they didn’t) and shame on the dopes that cared more about numbers than their safety.
03/04/2011 at 1:38 am #1943922This thread is starting to look familiar…
Hmmmmm03/04/2011 at 2:17 am #1943923I guess I didn’t realize how isolated the highway was out there. 10 cars in 8 hours would not be a safety risk then. I have done a bunch of caches lately that are way more in harms way as far as traffic. I guess that would illiminate one of my issues with it.
03/06/2011 at 5:41 am #1943924It’s too bad the series got archived. As I mentioned to Trekin’ and Birdin’ last month, it’s fun to do somthing like that just to say you did. Sure – if every geocache outing looked like that, it would get very dull – but what fun to say you did it. We will definitely have more outings like last Monday where we spent five hours treking through the Kettle Moraine Forest to do the Woodpecker Series and had a blast. Definitely did not pad the numbers, but oh how it padded the stories and memories of geocaching. It’s nice to have a good mix of cache choices I think. Sometimes you feel like working your butt off – other times you just want to grab a few easy ones. Glad there is something for everyone.
The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.