How Many Caches Is To Many?

[+GerbilMafia]

How many caches should one guy place? In my area one guy seems to be all over the place, which is is cool. But what can I do when HIS caches get plunderd and it takes him forever to maintain it or take it offline? I have hunted several of these caches and logged DNF's and noted several others teams have as well. The cahes them selves never seem to be maintained after the initial hide. I'm beginning to get agrivated and I know this is not what this sport is about. Any advise?????

[+Ed & Julie]

How many caches should a cacher have?

Only as many as they can reasonably maintain, and not 1 more than that.

 

Ed

[knowschad]

We have one famous guy around here that has over 700 caches. He's been active since 2001, but still, that is a lot of caches, and it does tend to limit opportunities for new players. That said, without people like him, we probably wouldn't have newer players. So, the situation is somewhat difficult. Many of his many caches are rather simplistic (which I'd imagine was the norm four years ago), and because of proximity rules, it makes it tough for those of us that want to raise the bar and create more creative, fun, difficult, whatever... caches. Not really sure what the answer is. In my case, the person I'm mentioning is very gracious about yielding to new players, but I'm sure that isn't always the case. This is a good question that is also covered in another recent thread (but I can't find it)

[+robert]

Ed hit the nail on the head.

 

Some can reasonably maintain 2, 3, or 5. Others can maintain 40 or more. All depends on the hider. Your guy doesn't seem to be able to handle what he's got out but sometimes things get in the way of being able to check on them as quickly as you'd like. If the hides are consistently out of wack, that's not a good thing. Just have to ignore the caches unless you know they're okay.

 

If the caches have several logs over a period of time noting that the cache is in bad shape, etc. and no notes from the hider, log an SBA note on it and let the reviewer handle it from there.

[+dingermcduff]

I have found a few of the caches by the same hider mentioned by knowschad, and he's right, every one of them I've been to has been a weathered ice cream pail under a bush in an undistinguished area. I'm sure he has better hides, but not in the northern Minnesota locations I have been to.

 

We have another hider near me who is very profilic. He has stated he has the goal of hiding one cache a week. So far, he has been in the game ~1 year and has ~50 hides, most of them within about 5 miles of my home, so I have hunted most of them, some only for a "fix". Some of his hides are very good and rank among my favorite caches and others are not my cup of tea and have been fairly boring (I know that some of these are easier because they are intended to be handicapped accessible). As far as I can tell, he does a good job maintaining his caches and overall I think his contributions to the local caching community have been positive and I will continue to find his caches and hope for another of the periodic 'gems' he hides. I will also concede that many of his spots might have never had caches placed at them if he hadn't done it.

 

HOWEVER...

 

I have always felt there should be a limit on the number of hides a person can have.

 

1. In my area, there is a huge concentration of caches by this particular cacher and far fewer hides by the other locals (including myself). Because of this, when people pass through the area and want to do just a few caches, the chance of most or all of the visits going to this hider's caches is pretty high. The rest of us get lost in the mix. I'm sure this is not the only area like that.

 

2. I am fortunate to live in an area with quite a bit of public land, but suitable places for hides are still limited here as they are everywhere. I think that very profilic hiders deny other cachers, especially new ones, the opportunity to make great hides. The result is that either these cachers don't make any hides, miss out on that rewarding experience, and the community is denied what may be some great caches from a new perspective OR newbies go and hide caches in mediocre or inappropriate spots. When that happens, muggle problems increase.

 

3. One cacher making scores of hides in an area makes the area scene much more homogenous. If everyone puts in a handful of caches, rather than one person contributing a hundred caches and just a scattering of other caches with a some people not bothering to hide because nowhere is left, there is more variety available.

 

4. I think a ceiling on the number of active hides one can have would really encourage hiders to do their best, knowing that they had only a certain number to work with. As it stands, they aren't really out anything if they take a prime area and stick a lousy cache there--but the rest of us are. A little self-imposed quality control might also result--hiders would be more willing to archive a cache that proves itself to be a turd.

 

5. Cache maintenance and swag would probably improve.

 

I really appreciate what some of these profilic hiders are trying to do. In most cases I really think they sincerely feel that they aren't stepping on any toes (though once you've topped a couple hundred hides you're knee deep in self-ego stroking) and many are creating some great caches, but I think for some the quality of the hide is sometimes secondary to being able to log a hide on their stats.

 

I'll get flamed to Hell and back for this, but I'd say that a number around 25 or 30 is really plenty of hides from any one cacher. I can think of 50 places to hide 50 different caches right now--and I would believe that every one of them was the best cache ever hidden, but I think it would be largely self serving and not to the benefit of the community if I pursued that course of action. I can't see why anyone would want to have so many cache hides that they can barely remember them anyway.

 

I'd like to see the site administrators contact some of the cachers with oodles of hides and ask them to voluntarily cull the bottom 10-20% of their hides and give newbies a shot at their locations. There are nearly 200,000 active caches listed on this site--I'm sure there are at least 10% of those that really aren't worth anyone's time to find.

[+Team Perks]

I'll get flamed to Hell and back for this, but I'd say that a number around 25 or 30 is really plenty of hides from any one cacher.  I can think of 50 places to hide 50 different caches right now--and I would believe that every one of them was the best cache ever hidden, but I think it would be largely self serving and not to the benefit of the community if I pursued that course of action.  I can't see why anyone would want to have so many cache hides that they can barely remember them anyway. 

Very well, let me be the first to flame.

 

As long as the cache owner isn't throwing film canisters out the window every 528 feet and is responsive to reported problems, I really don't give a rat's butt how many caches they've hidden. There are more than a few cachers in my most frequented caching areas who have 50, 100, or even 200 hides, and I know that whenever I see one of their caches pop up on my GPS that I'm in store for a well-planned, well-maintained cache. Based on my observations over the past two years and 2400+ finds, it's quite possible to have a high hide count AND keep your caches properly maintained at the same time.

 

I've had upwards of 60 active caches at one time, and I was able to maintain them with no problem. I'm presently down to 42 (give or take), but I'd have quite a few more than that right now if I hadn't moved and voluntarily pulled many of my own hides. But here you are telling me that I should be prohibited from hiding any more caches, because that would be self-serving?

 

I don't hide caches for myself. Because I enjoy finding others' caches, I enjoy giving back to the cachers who do me the favor of hiding caches. People have loved most of my hides. How is that self-serving, and how does that detract from the game? I just don't see the connection.

 

I guess I should just keep finding caches, and not hide any. That way instead of getting flak from those who think I've hidden too many, I can instead get scolded by those who are upset that I'm not hiding anymore. You can't please everyone.

[+.Mitch.]

The more the better! As long as they are maintained, why not???

[4wheelin_fool]

A good hide + a decent container = low maintenance(or none). In my opinion if you hide something where if it's put back wrong, or left out in the open and muggles STILL dont come across it - thats a good hide. Also, using tupperware containers seems to be popular, but I've found many that are wet inside. The same goes with many homemade containers - cracked, small holes. Lock N Locks and ammo boxes seem to work very well - as either they are open, or closed, no in between. Some cachers have just a few poorly thought out hides, and thats too many for them to handle. Others can have dozens and it still wouldnt be enough. You cant go by the numbers.

Edited August 8, 2005 by 4wheelin_fool

[Yankees Win!]

How many caches should a cacher have?

Only as many as they can reasonably maintain, and not 1 more than that.

I agree with that statement. However, I also notice that in some areas, one or two cache hiders seem to have overwhelmed their areas with caches, and as a result, nobody else hides any (or they feel they can't hide any.) Intentionally or not, the "prolific hider" has become the "proprietary hider." I don't think that is necessarily a good thing.

Edited August 8, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+AtoZ]

How many caches should one guy place? In my area one guy seems to be all over the place, which is is cool. But what can I do when HIS caches get plunderd and it takes him forever to maintain it or take it offline? I have hunted several of these caches and logged DNF's and noted several others teams have as well. The cahes them selves never seem to be maintained after the initial hide. I'm beginning to get agrivated and I know this is not what this sport is about. Any advise?????

GC.COM is a listing service with some guidelines, I wouldn't say any more. But it is NOT a RULE enfrocing agency. If you don't like the guys caches or have a problem with them then email they guy and tell him. But DON'T ask for more rules.

cheers

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

The world's a big place. As long as the caches are maintained, I think it's okay to have many caches. The biggest issue is that someone may muggle the caches if they feel someone has too many -- not cool, but I suppose it may happen.

 

The problem with a finite resource (such as a city park) it that it is limited. I think that a prolific cacher placer would certainly move a cache or retire a cache if someone asked them to.

[+StarBrand]

I have over 50 hides - I maintain them and check on them whenever I get problem reports and at least 1 time per year otherwise. I am not hogging any area. It has taken me well over 3 years to place those caches. Some areas I have eyed for years and nobody else ever places a cache there. New users come and go. Some are good hiders others are not. We have 7 - 8 area cachers that are pretty active but only have 2 -3 hides. My wife and I enjoy hiding as much as finding.

 

I am willing to go out and place high quality containers full of nice trade items and restock the boxes when I can. Sure beats a bunch of log only micros 1000 yards into the woods.

 

No - no restrictions. No rules. Place what you can take care of.

[+JohnnyVegas]

The ability for a cacher to maintain a cache is what is most important. I have about 40 actives caches now which for me is about all I would want to maintian, if I decide I want to maintian another cache I just archive one of my old ones.

right now I am archiving some of my caches because I recently moved and some of my caches are going to be more of a pain to manitian. Besides, maybe someone will hide a cache in the area of the ones I archive, then I can try for another FTF

 

If some one knows of a cache that is not being maintained check to see how often the owner logs onto the web site, if they are not active geocachers anymore send them and e-mail and offer to adopt the cache, if they do not respond to an e-mail submitt a Should be Archived in the logs and maybe even send a note to the local reviewer.

[+Salvelinus]

I think even the OP would agree that if the caches are being maintained than the number of hides is a non-issue.

 

But it seems the OP, like myself, has experienced cachers getting new caches approved while they still have maintenance issues on caches they have previously placed. Frankly, some of these people need to be "reeled" in. I guess you could have a new guideline for cache approval that says you cannot have new caches approved until your current caches are adaquately maintained. But that may end up being a nighmare for the approvers because some situations are not as obvious as others. And your vision of adaquate maintence may be different from anothers.

 

Personally, I can't maintain more than about a dozen caches at any one time. Then again, very few of my hides are easy to get to, and I'm a stickler for maintence to begin with.

 

Salvelinus

[+VegasCacheHounds]

I'd say that there is no magicall number, as some people have their hands full whith very few caches (like myself) and others have no problem maintaining a huge number. My problem isn't with how many caches any one cacher has, but how they respond to problems.

 

For instance, there is a cacher here in the Dallas area that has over 200 hides, and every cache of his that I've found has been in good condition. Any time someone posts a problem, he is on top of it.

On the other hand, there is another cacher that has a bunch, over a hundred but I'm unsure just how many off of the top of my head, and there is a large number of their caches that I've seen multiple logs over the course of many months reporting problems with no action, yet they continue to place new caches before checking on the existing ones.

 

To me, it looks like the first cacher hasn't hit the limit, but the second has rocketed right by it, even though the second has less than the first.

[+briansnat]

I'm not in favor of any limits beyond what someone is willing and able to maintain.

 

However, I also notice that in some areas, one or two cache hiders seem to have overwhelmed their areas with caches, and as a result, nobody else hides any (or they feel they can't hide any.) Intentionally or not, the "prolific hider" has become the "proprietary hider." I don't think that is necessarily a good thing.

 

I'm guilty as charged, but I don't see a problem with it. A one time, I was basically one of about 2-3 people who were hiding caches in the area. Now there are many others and none of them seemed to be discouraged because I was the area's "proprietary hider".

 

I can think of 50 places to hide 50 different caches right now--and I would believe that every one of them was the best cache ever hidden, but I think it would be largely self serving and not to the benefit of the community if I pursued that course of action. I

 

How does it benefit the community by not placing caches in these awesome spots? You know of the beautiful, hidden waterfall a mile from the road, why not place a cache there so others can enjoy it? I find neat spots all the time and most of the time, if I don't place a cache there nobody does. If I do place one, what does it matter to the finder if I have 1 hide or 150? It gives them a chance to find a cache in a nice area.

 

Also, I fail to see how spending the time, money and effort to hide a cache for the enjoyment of total strangers is self serving.

Edited August 8, 2005 by briansnat

[Tahosa and Sons]

Maintenance is the key. I'm about at my max for now until I find some places I can 4 x 4 for access, then a short hike.

[Yankees Win!]

Now there are many others and none of them seemed to be discouraged because I was the area's "proprietary hider".

How did you determine that? I think the number of caches hidden in close proximity to your caches would probably be a pretty good indicator.

Edited August 8, 2005 by Yankees Win!

[+briansnat]

Now there are many others and none of them seemed to be discouraged because I was the area's "proprietary hider".

How did you determine that? Do all of the cachers in your area place caches, and have you been in contact with each and every one of them? I ask only because you used he word "none."

The fact that they placed caches in the area would make me think that they were not discouraged. Not a poll, but empirical evidence.

[Yankees Win!]

The fact that they placed caches in the area would make me think that they were not discouraged. Not a poll, but empirical evidence.

Oops. You were posting as I was editing my post. I agree ... the empirical evidence is quite compelling. But does it support your contention?

[+briansnat]

The fact that they placed caches in the area would make me think that they were not discouraged.  Not a poll, but empirical evidence.

...the empirical evidence is quite compelling. But does it support your contention?

Yep, in fact it has drawn other cachers to place in those areas. You can see where I live (cluster around Butler) and my chief cache hiding ground (cluster around Wanaque) and though many of them are mine far from all are.

 

BTW, the cluster around Green Pond is the work of two other cachers who have placed many outstanding caches.

Edited August 8, 2005 by briansnat

[Yankees Win!]

...the empirical evidence is quite compelling.  But does it support your contention?

Yep, in fact it has drawn other cachers to place in those areas. You can see where I live (cluster around Butler) and my chief cache hiding ground (cluster around Wanaque) and though many of them are mine far from all are.

Nice map, but it doesn't really tell us anything. Try using this simple method for collecting "empirical evidence": Randomly click on any cache you own, and of the closest 10 caches, see how many are yours. I would think that other cachers have been discouraged from hiding in an area if more than half of the caches are owned by any one individual.

 

I clicked randomly on several of your caches of different types, placed in different areas. In each sample, you owned at least 8 of the closest 10 caches ... in a couple of notable samples, you owned something like 17 of the closest 20. To me, that "empirical evidence" very clearly suggests that others may have been discouraged from hiding in those areas.

 

Mind you, I am not saying you should not be free to place as many caches as you can reasonably maintain, or that any of the caches you have placed are of questionable quality. But you spoke of "empirical evidence," and I think the evidence supports my earlier statement quite nicely.

[+treasure_hunter]

No more stupid rules!!!!!!!! Just simply email the cache owner with your concerns.

[+briansnat]

In each sample, you owned at least 8 of the closest 10 caches ... in a couple of notable samples, you owned something like 17 of the closest 20. To me, that "empirical evidence" very clearly suggests that others may have been discouraged from hiding in those areas.

 

Unless we survey all the area cachers we'll never know. Personally, I just can't see someone thinking "I found an awesome spot for a cache, but that's BrianSnat's territory". Maybe someone has. I can't read everyone's mind, but people are people are placing caches in the area, so I don't see the fact that I have a lot there as an impediment.

 

In the end, is it really important who placed them? As long as there are good caches out there for the hunting, that's the key. Heck, I'd rather that 17 of the closest 20 caches were placed by someone else so it would give me more to find.

Edited August 8, 2005 by briansnat

[+The Waldo's]

No more stupid rules!!!!!!!! Just simply email the cache owner with your concerns.

Oh Oh ! Now We have to have a Rule against Stupid Rules.

[+TeamK-9]

A local "prolific" cacher has somewhere near 30 or 40 hides.

 

A good number of them are in really cool, out of the way spots that no one else would find if it weren't for him. They don't always have the best stuff in them, but they're good caches just because of location.

 

This cacher responds to almost all maintenance issues within a short period of time. But quite frankly, he doesn't have many problems with his caches, simply because of the location and manner in which they're hidden.

 

He has forty hides and can handle the responsibility.

 

I on the other hand have three (two now, after archiving one a few weeks ago) I don't yet have my driver's license, and so I rely on my dad to take me caching. I have tons of hiding ideas. Many of them in out of the way areas, a reasonable distance from my home. I probably could hide them all, but I don't because I know that if I were to hide one x miles from my house, it might take my dad a week or two before he can drive me out there.

 

Reasonably, I can handle three or four caches, within a short distance of my home, at least until I can get my driver's license.

 

Other cachers, with driver's licenses and time (that's the important part) can reasonably handle more caches than I can...

[+Harry Dolphin]

In each sample, you owned at least 8 of the closest 10 caches ... in a couple of notable samples, you owned something like 17 of the closest 20. To me, that "empirical evidence" very clearly suggests that others may have been discouraged from hiding in those areas.

 

Unless we survey all the area cachers we'll never know. Personally, I just can't see someone thinking "I found an awesome spot for a cache, but that's BrianSnat's territory". Maybe someone has. I can't read everyone's mind, but people are people are placing caches in the area, so I don't see the fact that I have a lot there as an impediment.

 

In the end, is it really important who placed them? As long as there are good caches out there for the hunting, that's the key. Heck, I'd rather that 17 of the closest 20 caches were placed by someone else so it would give me more to find.

No. Brian does not intimidate us! He inspires us. Well, except for the boulderfields and swamps... I put out caches that I like, in places that I like. North Jersdey is a large area, with varied terrain. There's enough room for all of us.

My first find was one of Brian's, at Terrace Pond. (Not far off the trail that I maintain.) I have not put one near there, yet. But I shall. That's more respect than intimidation.

As to numbers: I will only put out as many as I feel comfortable maintaining. I'm at 530 finds and 11 hides. I have a few more thoughts for hides, but I would not be comfortable with many more hides.

[+pater47]

I currently have 24 active caches, three of which are multis, two of which are micros, and none of which are virtuals or locationless. For me, that's about all I can keep well-maintained. I usually put a lot of thought into my caches. Even though I don't plan to put out another one for probably a year or so, believe it or not, I'm already working on it. (Shoeless Joe, if you read this, yes, it's another epic adventure, and yes it has something to do with black buffaloes) For somebody with plenty of time, they might could handle more. Generally, I do maintenance when someone mentions a maintenance issue in their logs, when there's been a couple of consecutive no-finds, or it's gone three months without any finds.

 

Sure, some people can properly maintain a lot more, but at the same time I understand the OPs concerns. We have a couple of folks in the state who are prolific film canister strewers who have a poor maintenance history.

 

(editted for spelling)

Edited August 9, 2005 by pater47

[Yankees Win!]

Unless we survey all the area cachers we'll never know. Personally, I just can't see someone thinking "I found an awesome spot for a cache, but that's BrianSnat's territory". Maybe someone has.

"Adric ... Tell Dexeter we've come full circle..."

 

In the end, is it really important  who placed them?  As long as there are good caches out there for the hunting, that's the key.  Heck, I'd rather that 17 of the closest 20 caches were placed by someone else so  it would give me more to find.

 

You've answered your own question ... If you were in an area less cache-dense than Northern New Jersey, you might have only three or four caches to seek within a reasonable distance. There have been several threads complaining about precisely that problem.

[+SixDogTeam]

How many caches should one guy place? In my area one guy seems to be all over the place, which is is cool. But what can I do when HIS caches get plunderd and it takes him forever to maintain it or take it offline? I have hunted several of these caches and logged DNF's and noted several others teams have as well. The cahes them selves never seem to be maintained after the initial hide. I'm beginning to get agrivated and I know this is not what this sport is about. Any advise?????

I assume GerbilMafia is talking about my caches since he has found, by my count , 44 of my " caches" (sic) out of his total of about 85 finds. That's better than 50%, and I assume he enjoyed them or he wouldn't keep hunting them. He's right that I am sometimes slow to maintain my 180+ caches. I DO replace them, though, I don't just archive them when they are "plunderd" (sic), as he has with 3 out of the 4 hides he owns. The statement that I take "forever" to maintain some caches might be a slight exaggeration, but the statement that " The cahes (sic) them selves (sic) never seem to be maintained after the initial hide." is just plain WRONG. I replaced two MIA caches just this week, and I have replaced MANY others on a regular basis over the years. I'm truly sorry this cacher is getting "agrivated" (sic), that's not my intent in hiding caches. I don't know what "advise" (sic) to give him. I guess I can say I'm sorry I've let him down, and I will try to do better in the future. I guess the only thing I can say in my own defense is that I have repaired and replaced other folk's caches many times and many cachers around here have done the same for me. And, yes It's true that I've saturated this area with cemetery hides and Reservoir Woods hides, but a new cacher came along about six months ago, who lives about four miles from me, and he now has about sixty hides in this area, so I guess I didn't scare HIM off... Anyway, I DO maintain my caches, and I have a list of those that needs attention and I work on it on an ongoing basis. As I said, Sorry and I will try to do better in the future. --LEAD DOG

[+Team Tigger International]

How many caches should one guy place?  In my area one guy seems to be all over the place, which is is cool.  But what can I do when HIS caches get plunderd and it takes him forever to maintain it or take it offline?  I have hunted several of these caches and logged DNF's and noted several others teams have as well.  The cahes them selves never seem to be maintained after the initial hide.  I'm beginning to get agrivated and I know this is not what this sport is about.  Any advise?????

I assume GerbilMafia is talking about my caches since he has found, by my count , 44 of my " caches" (sic) out of his total of about 85 finds. That's better than 50%, and I assume he enjoyed them or he wouldn't keep hunting them. He's right that I am sometimes slow to maintain my 180+ caches. I DO replace them, though, I don't just archive them when they are "plunderd" (sic), as he has with 3 out of the 4 hides he owns. The statement that I take "forever" to maintain some caches might be a slight exaggeration, but the statement that " The cahes (sic) them selves (sic) never seem to be maintained after the initial hide." is just plain WRONG. I replaced two MIA caches just this week, and I have replaced MANY others on a regular basis over the years. I'm truly sorry this cacher is getting "agrivated" (sic), that's not my intent in hiding caches. I don't know what "advise" (sic) to give him. I guess I can say I'm sorry I've let him down, and I will try to do better in the future. I guess the only thing I can say in my own defense is that I have repaired and replaced other folk's caches many times and many cachers around here have done the same for me. And, yes It's true that I've saturated this area with cemetery hides and Reservoir Woods hides, but a new cacher came along about six months ago, who lives about four miles from me, and he now has about sixty hides in this area, so I guess I didn't scare HIM off... Anyway, I DO maintain my caches, and I have a list of those that needs attention and I work on it on an ongoing basis. As I said, Sorry and I will try to do better in the future. --LEAD DOG

Sixdogteam , we have hunted many many many of your caches and have enjoyed each and every one of them .

 

Speaking as someone that hunts your caches often, I can say that we have had to log DNF's on them very few times , and that after we have logged a DNF it seems that you replaced or repaired said cache within a very reasonable amount of time .

 

We enjoy your caches very much and for the record we think ( well we know ) you have inspired many others to place caches that are thoughtful and full of historical value , especially if you take the time to read the webpages that list the cache.

 

There dosen't seem to be a "your territory " or a "my territory" issue .... Its more of a "who finds the cool place to put a cache first " kinda thing that is going on if you ask me.

 

I think lots of these places would have been completely overlooked by many of us had it not been for your placing a cache there .

 

Place what you are comfortable with maintaining, and keep on caching !

 

We don't need anymore "limits" placed on people , we have enough of that going around already ...

 

Star

[+Renegade Knight]

... I'm beginning to get agrivated ....  Any advise?????

Let it go. Reviewers make a sweep every now and then to remind owners with disabled caches to maintain them. If they do life is good. If they don't it's archived and life is good.

 

Owners tend to end up with as many caches as they can reasonable maintain. That's also a functoin of the cache maggots who steal the caches and create part of the workload, plus people who have not yet learned how to seal the container and rehide it like the owner hid it so it wouldn't be found by muggles.

Edited August 9, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

There's enough room for all of us.

My first find was one of Brian's, at Terrace Pond. (Not far off the trail that I maintain.) I have not put one near there, yet. But I shall. That's more respect than intimidation.

 

Don't you dare, that's MY territory!

[Yankees Win!]

There's enough room for all of us.

My first find was one of Brian's, at Terrace Pond. (Not far off the trail that I maintain.) I have not put one near there, yet. But I shall. That's more respect than intimidation.

 

Don't you dare, that's MY territory!

I did not suggest that anyone, anywhere, has made a conscious, determined effort to block other geocachers from hiding caches in any area. Harry Dolphin introduced the word 'intimidation' to the conversation. I think the word is inappropriate. I merely repeated the word briansnat used, which was 'discouraged.' I think even that word is too strong, but since many of those caches have been in place a very long time and very, very few caches by other people have appeared in those areas, I suppose the word serves the purpose. Perhaps people are actually being 'deferential.'

 

None of that really matters, though. What really matters is that without a periodic infusion of new caches in those areas, the older caches would quickly be forgotten and/or ignored. The "empirical evidence" briansnat introduced to the conversation very clearly demonstrates that a periodic infusion of new caches does occur, and that, for the most part, one person has been responsible for it. (And good for him!) Steering the thread back towards its topic, at least we can rest assured that caches in "briansnat's territory" will remain well-maintained.

[+501_Gang]

As long as the 'hider' checks out the cache if there's been a couple of DNF's in a row, I don't think there should be a limit. We have a cache, that or some reason. people have been having a hard time finding. after 2 or 3 DNF's in a row, we go back out and check it again. So far it has always been there, but we still check. Once a month, we will go out and check them all to make sure they are all okay. We only have 15 out right now, but do plan on placing more. Not every team places or even wants to place a cache, so if a limit is placed on how many caches a team could place, sooner or later there might not be any new ones in your area to find.

 

You can come to our area and place as many as you want Teamsixdog! The more the better!!

Edited August 12, 2005 by 501_Gang

[+4damFam]

I'll have to agree with 501_gang and some others. Place 'em, maintain 'em, enjoy the game.

 

For others that are getting frustrated, email the cache owners that are having problems maintaining them. If you aren't getting sufficient results, then email and admin and ask to adopt the cache. I've adopted a handful in my area where the cache owners moved or don't live close enough to keep them maintained. As long as we are all adding to the game and helping out when needed, then there's nothing to worry about.

 

Cache on!

[knowschad]

Looks like this thread is drifting quite a bit from cache area monopoly to cache maintenance. To my mind, cache maintenance isn't the issue... you are already SUPPOSED to do cache maintenance. And to those that are shouting "NO MORE RULES"... who's talking about rules here? We're only talking about principles, so relax and listen to the logic.

 

It is short-minded to say that whatever number of caches can be maintained is good. That means that eventually any area will become filled with old caches that you and everybody else in your area has found. Yawn... how boring does that become? (Even a boring new cache is at least a new cache. ) Newcomers, perhaps with new and exciting ideas, won't have a place to implement them. Stagnation sets in. This situation leaves the newcomers feeling like vultures just waiting for an old cache to be plundered and archived so that they can finally try out their ideas.

 

It then becomes neccessary for you to hop into your car and start burning up gasoline in search of new caching adventures.

[+Joypa]

How much wood should a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck should chuck wood?

[aragorn05]

I say for every 10 to 20 caches you have found you should be able to hide one, that is my 2 cents.

[+Awsome Ev]

How many caches should one guy place?  In my area one guy seems to be all over the place, which is is cool.  But what can I do when HIS caches get plunderd and it takes him forever to maintain it or take it offline?  I have hunted several of these caches and logged DNF's and noted several others teams have as well.  The cahes them selves never seem to be maintained after the initial hide.  I'm beginning to get agrivated and I know this is not what this sport is about.  Any advise?????

I assume GerbilMafia is talking about my caches since he has found, by my count , 44 of my " caches" (sic) out of his total of about 85 finds. That's better than 50%, and I assume he enjoyed them or he wouldn't keep hunting them. He's right that I am sometimes slow to maintain my 180+ caches. I DO replace them, though, I don't just archive them when they are "plunderd" (sic), as he has with 3 out of the 4 hides he owns. The statement that I take "forever" to maintain some caches might be a slight exaggeration, but the statement that " The cahes (sic) them selves (sic) never seem to be maintained after the initial hide." is just plain WRONG. I replaced two MIA caches just this week, and I have replaced MANY others on a regular basis over the years. I'm truly sorry this cacher is getting "agrivated" (sic), that's not my intent in hiding caches. I don't know what "advise" (sic) to give him. I guess I can say I'm sorry I've let him down, and I will try to do better in the future. I guess the only thing I can say in my own defense is that I have repaired and replaced other folk's caches many times and many cachers around here have done the same for me. And, yes It's true that I've saturated this area with cemetery hides and Reservoir Woods hides, but a new cacher came along about six months ago, who lives about four miles from me, and he now has about sixty hides in this area, so I guess I didn't scare HIM off... Anyway, I DO maintain my caches, and I have a list of those that needs attention and I work on it on an ongoing basis. As I said, Sorry and I will try to do better in the future. --LEAD DOG

Sixdogteam , we have hunted many many many of your caches and have enjoyed each and every one of them .

 

Speaking as someone that hunts your caches often, I can say that we have had to log DNF's on them very few times , and that after we have logged a DNF it seems that you replaced or repaired said cache within a very reasonable amount of time .

 

We enjoy your caches very much and for the record we think ( well we know ) you have inspired many others to place caches that are thoughtful and full of historical value , especially if you take the time to read the webpages that list the cache.

 

There dosen't seem to be a "your territory " or a "my territory" issue .... Its more of a "who finds the cool place to put a cache first " kinda thing that is going on if you ask me.

 

I think lots of these places would have been completely overlooked by many of us had it not been for your placing a cache there .

 

Place what you are comfortable with maintaining, and keep on caching !

 

We don't need anymore "limits" placed on people , we have enough of that going around already ...

 

Star

I don't think that there should be a limit on how many caches that one cacher should place. As long as they are maintained and kept up there isin't a problem. I have found many many many of SDT's caches along with many of us fellow ISQers. We LOVE THEM. There is alot of history in them. And as far as the ones at the resivouer (sp) along with the ISQ's How many people actually know that these places exist. You would have normally kept on driving and never gave it a second thought. I personally love them.

 

People chill out and enjoy the game that is why it is here. And what will happen if every cacher that has ever signed up is only allowed to place a certian amount of caches there wouldn't be that many caches and you would end up driving further. If the caches are in your area go find them. for the out of towners I'm sure they would love to hit 50- 100 cahces in one day. think about it it ups your stats right?....

 

Sorry if I have offended anyone but this is just my opinion.....

[+Hoppingcrow]

Number of caches and cache maintenance go hand-in-hand. That's a no-brainer. Hide as many as you like, but take care of them.

 

There is a hider in my general area who has been planting three to ten caches per WEEK for some time now. Generally, by the time two weeks have elapsed following the plant date, at least half of her new ones will have been reported as having issues, such as being placed on private property, or at the Post Office ("potential terrorist target," and therefore not allowed), or the cache will have gone missing because it was placed in a high muggle area. Nevertheless, every week sees two or three more caches placed by this same person.

 

In this particular instance, I think this cacher's hides should come under closer scrutiny. I'm sorry, but the situation calls for it. She is on the verge of becoming a "proprietary" hider, and to what avail? Her hides are certainly not benefiting the geocaching community. Quite the contrary!

 

Nevertheless, I don't think we need a new "rule" here...just maybe a bit of serious watchdogging.

[Rupert2]

The answer to your inital question is 12,871 caches.

 

SixDogTeam has made NE Indiana a geocaching destination. Just ask all of those who drive 100, 200 miles or more from MI, OH, KY, IL and beyond to take a stab at this series. Of course he must maintain his 200+ caches (and does a remarkable job of doing so), but a storm or muggle can hit at any time knocking a micro container loose. Make his job a little easier by replacing a cache that is gone when given the opportunity. After doing 10 or 20 or 80 or 150 his caches you begin to catch on as to how he hides. He has done the community a great service, let's give the guy a little support.

 

Cache on!

Edited August 13, 2005 by Rupert2

[+Alan2]

3 years ago there were about 1,000 caches within 100 miles of my zip code 11375. Now there are almost 4400! And still growing. People just get more creative about finding places to hide their cahces and everyone of them are getting "hits".

 

So where 's the problem?

[knowschad]

I suspect that many of the different opinions being expressed here are based on local conditions, and on whether or not you are a new cacher wishing to place some of your own, or not. Some areas have all sorts of areas available. Some have very limited space. Obviously, the OP and myself are coming from areas with limited available caching space. We'd like to see some of this space be recycled... as a matter of etiquette, not as a matter of law. That's all we're saying.

 

As I pointed out earlier, cache maintenance is required, so obviously anybody that has placed more caches than they can maintain is placed too many. But that isn't what we're talking about.

[+Team RAGAR]

How many caches should one guy place? In my area one guy seems to be all over the place, which is is cool. But what can I do when HIS caches get plunderd and it takes him forever to maintain it or take it offline? I have hunted several of these caches and logged DNF's and noted several others teams have as well. The cahes them selves never seem to be maintained after the initial hide. I'm beginning to get agrivated and I know this is not what this sport is about. Any advise?????

A CACHER IS KNOW BY THE CACHES HE OR SHE KEEPS.

 

Here at TEAM RAGAR HQ we feel that it is better to maintain a small number of high quality caches rather than a high number of cache & dashes. We enjoy being very creative in out hides and watching hunters seek out those caches. We have just as any area does those cachers who are forever hiding but never maintaining. We have hiders who hide caches more thirty or fourty miles away from there home in all four directions. We have a cacher who really doesn't even average his hide coords. The best thing is to know your cache hiders and use that to judge whether or not you want to seek his or her cache. We like the game very much and like that it is played with very few rules.

 

All of these problems are just the nature of the game and you have to remember it is just a game! This is a concept that many cachers have a hard time understanding.

[+Awsome Ev]

 

SixDogTeam has made NE Indiana a geocaching destination. Just ask all of those who drive 100, 200 miles or more from MI, OH, KY, IL and beyond to take a stab at this series. Of course he must maintain his 200+ caches (and does a remarkable job of doing so), but a storm or muggle can hit at any time knocking a micro container loose. Make his job a little easier by replacing a cache that is gone when given the opportunity. After doing 10 or 20 or 80 or 150 his caches you begin to catch on as to how he hides. He has done the community a great service, let's give the guy a little support.

 

Cache on!

 

VERY MUCH AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+Torry]

I would hate to see an arbitrary number or formula used to limit a cacher. Many of the folks in this game are retired and have the time to travel about and handle a large number of hides. If the area near their home base has grown saturated then it merely means that other cachers will have to use a few more brain cells to place new ones.

 

In some areas that may mean a bunch of "bike trail micros" ... in other areas it means a whole new idea, such as Indiana's Spirit Quest or Illinois' "BOB" series. I have never heard any cacher "claiming" an area as his/her own. In fact, I usually hear the opposite as cachers with a favorite park or trail delight in others sharing the experience or area.

 

If you are getting frustrated because you think all the good places have been taken then you may not be thinking hard enough. Go deeper in the woods, take a trail less travelled. Make a multi-cache. Think a bit harder about the definition of "accessible public land." You can still place a hide on private property WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION. Adopt a cache that has been abandoned, or get it archived and place your own.

 

To try and set limits on others who may have more time for hiding or maintaining than you is not realistic or fair to the rest of us.

[+briansnat]

Here at TEAM RAGAR HQ we feel that it is better to maintain a small number of high quality caches rather than a high number of cache & dashes

 

There are people who maitain a high number of quality caches as well. Here's one.

 

f you are getting frustrated because you think all the good places have been taken then you may not be thinking hard enough. Go deeper in the woods, take a trail less travelled. Make a multi-cache. Think a bit harder about the definition of "accessible public land."

 

Very true. In some areas its not that all the good spots are taken, its all the easy spots are taken.

[YemonYime]

I think it's a matter of two things:

 

First, as a cacher, you ask yourself a simple question: Did this cache placement bring me to an enjoyable and interesting place?

 

Secondly: When you do enough caches by any single hider in which the answer to that question is more often "no" than "yes", then that hider is stretching it...and the logs by local cachers might start to reflect that by being shorter and less explanatory.

 

You know what they say about quality vs. quantity.

[+GerbilMafia]

August 9 by SixDogTeam (381 found)

Since Gerbilmafia found it necessary to flame us in the GC forums with some hateful statements about how we NEVER maintain our caches (a lie), we thought we better check this out. We have replaced the cache with a mini-m&m's tube and moved it a few yards downstream. We scratched an arrow in the limestone, but I don't know how long that will last. That discarded water bottle is guarding the cache. BE VERY CAREFUL. You will have to stand on the side of the cliff near the cave-ledge to find the cache, hidden in a crevice. THE ROCKS ARE CRUMBLY. DANGER WILL ROBINSON! We are upping the terrain and difficulty rating for this cache. Good Luck! --{b} LEAD DOG & PATRICK

[view this log on a separate page]

 

WOW, I never meant to cause a battle when I asked my question . I guess I have alot to learn about this game, as am I new at it. I don't have the huge stats that seem to be most important thing to some cachers. I assumed this game was about the outdoors, hiking, etc. I don't believe I was being hateful in my forum thread, I was simply asking a valid question about maintanence on SOME caches. I'm going to continue hunting these cahes because I enjoy it and from here on out I intend on staying out of the politics. I didn't think I was insulting anyone but obviously I did and for that I am sorry. Gerbilmafia...increase the peace.