XploreN

However, I think that many of us would love to see specific examples of "caches only 300' apart". I certainly don't know of any, and I have had caches turned down that were 524' from another (to use Keystone's example). OK, so the example I cited when I posted this was flawed because I failed to notice that one of the caches in the parking lot example had been archived. But if there are those who need to see specific examples - here's another I recently encountered. Check out Bob's Sinkhole and Beach Vacation TB Hotel. By my measurement these two caches are 108' apart. No big deal you say - well now do a search on caches named Patsy Pond # . You will see that, including the two aforementioned caches, there are a total of seventeen caches all within a 0.2 square mile area here. Total (route)distance between all of them is about 2.1 miles, and this is in a wilderness area. Please feel free to correct me if my software has calculated this improperly, but what I'm getting at is that there definitely are places where there exist a heavy saturation of caches. Note that I am not making any judgements about any of the named caches - I'm just using them as an example of cache density.

I really didn't mean to start a feud over this - maybe my perception of distance is exaggerated in the wild. The example I recall was of placing a cache in a wilderness preserve and it was deemed to be too close to another cache. Now there are a half dozen new caches within what I perceive to be between my cache and the one I was told I was too close to. Not to mention another three caches that are located in the same shopping complex parking lots. I personally don't get as much out of finding a micro cache hidden in the light pole of a parking lot vs an experience like a trek into a wild place to discover something like a hidden waterfall, etc. - but that's just me. As I stated in my previous post, I think there are many folks who concentrate on building up their "caches found" number. I just don't happen to fit in that category. If you look at my years as a member vs my number of caches found you might come to the conclusion that I am a very casual 'cacher. Quite the contrary - I've found many more caches than I've found the time to log - across the country and internationally. Each to his own, I guess - BUT while on the topic, I do say that the ability to FAV a cache should cause cache placers to put a little more thought into creating unique, quality caches.

I came across this thread because I've noticed caches being placed much closer together than what used to be allowed. I recall placing a cache only to be told by the geocaching website that it wasn't far away enough from another cache - and the distance had to be something like 1/2 mile. Now I'm finding caches that are only 300' apart. I just want to know what the 'rule' changes are, and when they were made. As for my opinion on the issue - I think it is relative to the area. If a town or city has numerous areas of interest it would be reasonable to have multiple caches located within a four-block area. If the location is a natural area, with particular areas of geographic interest the number of caches should be limited for the reasons others have mentioned. For me, the interest of geocaching is in discovering new places that I might not have ever otherwise come across - not in finding as many caches as possible in that area. I also think too many folks involved in the sport are overly concerned with their "cache found" count rather than the quality of the experience. Just MHO!

Me too. I recently could not connect to the site at all - 'Server Too Busy' error. Was that way all day. I'm now having a problem loging on, but I think that's due to a internet explorer setting. Just recently performed and update, and now it accepts the login info but still says I'm not logged in. Ideas?

Can't give an unbiased evaluation of the Garmin GPSmap76s 'cause it's the only one I've owned but I can tell you that the electronic compass feature is indespensible for caching. When you get close to a cache and are losing sat due to tree cover and your gps direction gets screwy 'cause your moving too slow - the compass kicks in and points the way.