A New Cache In The Same Park?

[Middie08]

I am new to caching and ready to place my first cache. Here's the problem...it seems like every park in my area already has a cache placed in it. Even the undeveloped public areas seem to be taken already. My question: is it considered 'bad form' to place a new cache in a park that already contains an existing cache, even if I respect the 528 rule? I mean is this perceived by the caching community as unimaginative or against any 'unwritten cachers code'?

[+Renegade Knight]

You never know what any one cacher may think, but 528' away is fine. Place your cache when you find a good location.

[+MSwahoo & the Cache Hound Posse]

It is perfectly fine to place new caches in a park with exisitng caches. There is a park in SC that has over a dozen in it. How fun would GWIII have been if there was only one cache in Hanna Park?

[+sassydil]

With gas prices what they are, I'm delighted to be able to search for more than one cache in the same area!

[+Renegade Knight]

With gas prices what they are, I'm delighted to be able to search for more than one cache in the same area!

Bring on the power trails! Hooah!

[+geognerd]

This weekend I looked for a park where I'd be able to search for several caches from the same parking spot, to minimize on driving. I found a park that had a series of 6 caches hidden along the trails, and a 7th cache placed by a different person on another trail adjacent to the park. So I got to hunt for 7 caches ("only" found 5) all within 0.5 mi of the car. Got a nice walk out of it too. If the park's big enough for more than one cache, go for it.

[+The Leprechauns]

Sure, more caches in the same park are fine by me, so long as each cache has some reason for its existence. My second cache was on the opposite side of a large park from an existing cache, and the logs from the people who had found the first cache were most appreciative, like "I knew there was a lot more to this park, so thanks for showing it to me."

 

So feature a cacheless trail, a scenic view, a hidden waterfall, an evil hiding place -- SOMETHING other than "I can place a cache 600 feet away from the other ones just because the spot is available."

 

Just my two cents.

[+George1]

There is a lake in Southern Md. that is a State Park that has 15 caches around the lake. It is a bit much but you can spend the whole day there.

[+badlands]

I often run across a cache page that gives credit to an existing/long standing cache in the same area. As a cache finder, I appreciate the extra information so I can find both in one trip.

[+The Waldo's]

We have a park nearby and if I have to go there one more time I will change my home

coordinates to the park.

 

I see no problem so go for it.

[Middie08]

Thanks so much for the good advice. There are several parks that deserve a new cache on the other side of the park. I also like the idea of giving reference to the existing cache so folks know there is more than one inthe area.

Thank you to all!!

[+BigFurryMonster]

What is the 528-rule? Is this something non-metric?

[+wandererrob]

What is the 528-rule? Is this something non-metric?

You aren't supposed to place a cache within 528 feet (0.1 mile) of an existing cache. It helps minimize the confusion of finding one cache when you're actually looking for another.

[+BigFurryMonster]

Ah! The 160.934 meter rule!

[+Thrak]

Ah! The 160.934 meter rule!

LOL - Actually the tenth of a mile rule.

Edited September 8, 2005 by thrak

[+tozainamboku]

Ah! The 160.934 meter rule!

Another reason for switching to the metric system. Since the cache approvers probably wouldn't want to check that caches are 160.934 meters apart, I'm guessing the metric rule would be 160 meters. That would allow us to place cache about 1 yard closer together.

Edited September 7, 2005 by tozainamboku

[+Kai Team]

Ah! The 160.934 meter rule!

Another reason for switching to the metric system. Since the cache approvers probably wouldn't want to check that caches are 160.934 meters apart, I'm guessing the metric rule would be 160 meters. That would allow us to place cache about 1 yard closer together.

Or they might round UP to 161 meters - forcing us to place our caches .066 meters (almost three full inches!) further apart

[+Thrak]

Nobody can complain to me about using Feet and Inches when they weigh in Stone.

[+Jester2112]

My question: is it considered 'bad form' to place a new cache in a park that already contains an existing cache, even if I respect the 528 rule?

I'm leaving in the morning for Little Rock, AR and while doing a search of the area found Burns Park in North Little Rock, AR. Check out the caches near waypoint: GCJCB5. I'm up to 16 caches in the same park and that's not counting the micros around that are on another search of mine. Also, if you check my home area, zip 32405, it's a bit sparse as far as density of hides go, and before anybody pounces, yes, I've begun contributing to the hide count. I say GO FOR IT!!! But, only if you come to FL and hide them in parks near me!!!

[+beejay&esskay]

Ah! The 160.934 meter rule!

Another reason for switching to the metric system. Since the cache approvers probably wouldn't want to check that caches are 160.934 meters apart, I'm guessing the metric rule would be 160 meters. That would allow us to place cache about 1 yard closer together.

Or they might round UP to 161 meters - forcing us to place our caches .066 meters (almost three full inches!) further apart

It would be much more natural to make that the 200 meter rule.

 

Think of the havoc that would cause to existing caches.

[+hukilaulau]

My only two finds in WV were in the same freeway rest area! But these were both great caches (by different people) with lots of good stuff in them. The rest area was hugh with some woods and fields and lots of room to walk and picnic. I'm glad the second hider wasn't discouraged just because there was already a cache there.