Geocache Saturation Rules

[+Renegade Knight]

...Isn't it about the spirit and not the letter? ...

That depends on your cache reviewer. Some are more flexible than others, but over time they have all come closer on what exactly the guidlines mean. 528' is the rule of law and it would not be excepted for caches in different parks.

 

That said, I agree that different parks even if closer than 528' is within the intent and spirit of why the 528' rule came into existance. However it's still not going to get an exception. I've gotten the feeling that the reviewers hands have been slapped on this issue over time and so the exceptions are very clearly defined now and they won't risk another slap on un-approved exceptions.

[tossedsalad]

If that is the case, what is the point of having reviewers? You can check compliance with the guidelines with a smart web page, no need for reviewers to make judgements.

 

Whatever. Its just a silly game. Besides, I just got my MD geocoins!!!

[+robert]

I see the guideline more as a saturation or density issue than one that prevents accidentally finding another cache.

 

To me the .1 guideline is probably the easiest one to abide by (if any of them could be called difficult). When I place one the first thing I do is look to make sure there aren't any others where I plan to place mine. When I placed my first, I did a GOTO to the other cache in the park and made sure to be at least .1 from the cache.

 

Maybe a test really is the best thing. If you place a cache, keep it .1 away and we don't have these "discussions".

 

If you feel you need to place it closer and it doesn't get listed, just (re)move it. We do this for fun. In the grand scheme of things, not having a series of cache listed on every street corner is not that big of a deal.

[Skovar]

1. I am "mobility challenged", and I find it highly wonderful to get a cache nearby that is easy, and I know of others that feel that same way.

 

2. If there are not caches in town, than we in our area would have to "in one outing" drive up into the foothills of the cascades. Thus, time and money come into account.

 

3. And I don't know about you, but sometimes I do need to geocache.

What did I suggest in my earlier post? A 1/4 mile minimum distance between caches in urban areas? If that would be unduly restrictive, then I suppose your town must be really, really small and you have very, very little time for recreation. I would think one cache per outing would provide satisfaction, but apparently not.

 

We need to breath, eat, and drink. Many of us need to earn a living. And, after the necessities of life have been attended to, we need recreation. Geocaching provides one opportunity for recreation among many, so no, I would say we don't need geocaching. But it is a nice option to have.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Just let the reviewer know what the situation is and they will usually work with you. I have several caches in town that are under the 528 ft. rule and they are no problem to the other cache that is in the same park. The caches in the hills are no problem at all, we have miles and miles of hills & woods.

[+Renegade Knight]

If that is the case, what is the point of having reviewers? You can check compliance with the guidelines with a smart web page, no need for reviewers to make judgements.

 

Whatever. Its just a silly game. Besides, I just got my MD geocoins!!!

Because some people don't read or follow the guidelines. Anyone can check a box.

 

There is something majorly wrong with your description of geocaching. You just failed the test. No caches for you. Seriously there are very good reasons you should not call geocaching a game. It's a Reacreational/Sport/Activity/Hobby aka RASH. It's not a RAG.

 

If you can't figure out why I'll point you the right direction.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There are a couple of caches in a park, both listed in 2005. They started out just over 528 feet apart, but are now only 325 apart. Both cache owners had to move caches as trees came down and maintenance workers chose their cache spot to stack storm debris. Anyway, caches do move - so an initial distance of .1 allows for some "drift" and still no confusion. In this particular case, I'd guess both cache owners where in the park on the same weekend moving and replacing their missing caches - just coincidental that they shifted towards each other.

[+Ambrosia]

If that is the case, what is the point of having reviewers?  You can check compliance with the guidelines with a smart web page, no need for reviewers to make judgements. 

 

Whatever.  Its just a silly game.  Besides, I just got my MD geocoins!!! 

Because some people don't read or follow the guidelines. Anyone can check a box.

 

There is something majorly wrong with your description of geocaching. You just failed the test. No caches for you. Seriously there are very good reasons you should not call geocaching a game. It's a Reacreational/Sport/Activity/Hobby aka RASH. It's not a RAG.

 

If you can't figure out why I'll point you the right direction.

I point you to one of the links in my sig line.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

They are guidelines. 

 

I listed a cache that was 400 feet away from another cache a few days ago.  The cache required a heavy traverse to get to it as the crow flies.  The cache owner explained it very well and the maps for the cache all backed that up.  I happily listed the cache.  The OP's cache in question is in a metro area.  It is 300 feet from another cache.  The maps show about a 50 foot walk to the street, 300 feet down one street, then about 50 feet to the other cache.  At 400 feet, it still doesn't wash.

 

You will believe what you want.  If you want to beleive they are hard and fast rules then that is what you believe.  The facts show otherwise.

From my experience, I agree with mtn-man that they are guidelines only, and not hard and fast rules, and in fact, I believe that this is likely true of most of the geocaching.com guidelines. I have personally placed a cache within 528 feet of a pre-existing cache, but

• I simply pointed out respectfully to the reviewer that the two caches were:
  on opposite sides of a divided highway
  in different shopping centers (aka strip malls)
  in totally different terrain: my cache was a nasty underground Difficulty 4/Terrain 5 cache, while the preexisting cache was hidden under a tree, with a D/T rating of about 1.5/1.5
  

The reviewer okayed the cache promptly. In fact, I have realized that I later hit a similar "technical conflict" with another underground cache, and it seems that the reviewer in this case recognized the relevant facts instantly, which were:

• one cache was a "plain vanilla" lamppost micro located in a strip mall parking lot, while mine was located deep underground in a nearby county park
  different terrain and difficulty
  it would be hard to even walk from one cache location to the other in less than ten minutes without lots of detours, due to vastly different settings and natural and manmade barriers.
  

I have also been granted exceptions to place caches near to what appeard to be railroad tracks, once I pointed out that the railroad tracks had been abandoned and that nearby businesses even parked their cars on the tracks and placed signs on the tracks, that many nearby homes and businesses are located within 25 feet of the tracks, and that the tracks parallel a busy city road, only ten feet from it.

 

So, my summary experience has been that reviewers tend to treat the guidelines as guidelines, and not as rules, if the cache hider carefully, sincerely and respectfully explains all the salient factors to the reviewer in a reviewer note or in provate communications.

 

In fact, to go to an admittedly very extreme example: I have even seen caches located in national parks, and I have been told that at least two had beene placed with full permission of the reviewer.

[Kirbert]

Judging from this discussion, there appear to be three general reasons for the 528' separation guideline/rule:

 

* Avoid finding one cache when looking for another.

 

* Avoid "saturation", too many geocaches crammed too close together taking all the fun out of the pastime.

 

* Avoid landowners getting bent out of shape over too many caches on their land.

 

Then several opined that it doesn't matter what the minimum separation was, some would consider it too little while others would think it was too much. This is true -- for the last two reasons. It is NOT true about the first reason. In order to avoid finding one geocache when looking for another, a minimum separation is necessary -- but 528' is WAAAAY too much for this objective. 100' is a more plausible minimum separation there. For this reason, I would suggest that 100' be a hard and fast minimum separation -- and by hard and fast, I mean no reviewer necessary, the GC.com web site could be programmed to automatically reject any new listings that are closer.

 

I will admit that I hadn't considered the landowner issue before starting this discussion. And it's a good point. But we're supposed to be obtaining permission from landowners before placing, aren't we? If we get such permission, will the reviewer still reject the listing? Whatever, this is a classic example of why the minimum of 528' should be a guideline, not a rule; in some examples, placing closer is perfectly reasonable, while in other cases it's just cramming too many caches in too small an area, and the reviewers should be asked to consider each case and neither reject nor accept automatically but rather to consider the factors of rural vs. urban, micro vs. regular, one park vs. separate parks, etc.

 

A couple of replies suggested the 528' minimum was a rule, not a guideline, apparently based on the experiences they've had with reviewers. I can speak to that experience. I live fairly close to the Florida/Georgia line, and have geocaches in both states. The reviewer I've dealt with in placing Florida caches has been a real PITA, all over my case not only on this 528' separation thing but also other things. I can't say he was always wrong; in some cases, I needed to change my ways. But in contrast, the reviewer of my Georgia placements has always been a pleasure to deal with; in fact, I don't think he's ever rejected anything of mine, even when I was worried it might need some revision prior to listing. If you haven't had problems with your reviewer, you're probably just lucky that you've drawn a good reviewer.

 

Someone asked about other similar pastimes. I am an active letterboxer and can speak to that one in particular: there are no reviewers and no review process. You place your hide and post your clues. The clues are available for others to download the minute you get through typing them and hitting "enter". And, yes, I once found three letterboxes in one five-acre park, two of which were so close to one another that I ended up sitting on the same bench to "stamp in". But for the most part, this kind of thing isn't a problem. There is no technical reason for a minimum separation of letterboxes, since it doesn't use GPS; you could easily place hides twenty feet apart with no confusion. Of course, there are only about 1/10 as many letterboxes out there as geocaches, so saturation isn't as big an issue.

 

I dunno about you guys, but I've become quite adept at choosing the type geocaches I want to hunt. If you're in the mood for finding a micro in the Wal-Mart parking lot, go for it. If you're in the mood for a couple of hours of slogging through the woods, go for that. If you're downtown and you're hunting micros in city parks that are one block square, the 528' minimum separation rule does nothing for anybody. And if reviewers are so stubborn as to reject listings based on this "guideline" which was clearly crafted with more rural settings in mind, then the "guideline" should be modified or abolished altogether and replaced with something that is more clearly intended to be applied judiciously rather than strictly.

 

The numbers guys were also mentioned several times. I can't say I fully appreciate the desire to find or place lousy caches simply to increase my find or placement count, so I can't really speak to this issue. However, perhaps what is needed here is some established procedure by which we can REPLACE existing caches. Like, if we want to place a cache somewhere but there's already one close by, contacting the placer of that cache and asking permission to pull it while placing the new one. If there happens to be a good reason -- like, the old cache is damaged or the hiding place isn't what it used to be -- this would seem to offer benefits to all, especially if the placer of the old cache is not docked one placement count when his cache is removed. Another viable reason for such replacement might be to replace a micro with a regular cache (I dislike wilderness micros). The new hide should never be in the same exact hiding place as the old one, so anyone adding to their find count actually must find a new cache rather than just going to the same hide the old one was (you'd be amazed how many guys showed up to that park series who had been there before, just so they could score another smilie. I called one of them on it, and he didn't even seem to understand what was wrong with scoring two smilies on the same hide.) As this pastime matures with the years, I think sooner or later we're going to have to get to the point of doing something like this, because we will effectively have "saturation" in all the most interesting areas, leaving new placers the choice of horning in on existing locations or placing caches in areas with no appeal whatsoever (which, as someone pointed out, is already happening).

[+Isonzo Karst]

some established procedure by which we can REPLACE existing caches. Like, if we want to place a cache somewhere but there's already one close by, contacting the placer of that cache and asking permission to pull it while placing the new one.

That procedure already exists. You email the owner of the listing you need archived and ask her. I've done that several times and always gotten a yes. I'd archive all but three of my listings if you asked. The problem arises when a functioning hide has a MIA owner. There's one like that in the forest near me. The only way to get that guy archived would be to go through the non-voluntary adoption then archive it. Or I guess you could physically remove it and let the DNFs pile up then log an SBA. I wouldn't go that route, but I've heard tell.

[CoyoteRed]

Kirbert, dadgum fine post.

 

I do take exception to a completely hard and fast rule of 100' simply as a straight line measurement. Some city parks are seperated by a substantial barrier like a 10' brick wall. Two multis could have the final stages mere feet from each other, but separated, practically, by hundreds of feet. There should be exceptions to this rule, maybe on an appeal basis.

 

I would also encourage the fine folks who run this site to forcibly remove virts from the site, or at least disregard them when considering new placements. I would also disregard virtual stages in the process. There is absolutely no reason two multis can't share the same virtual stage if they wanted.

 

As for the cache saturation excuse for this guideline, I simply reject its effectiveness. Let's consider that you can place about 112 caches per square mile. Do a little math and you can get the same number of caches in a little under .6 mile radius. (Closer to .565 miles or around 352 caches in a one mile radius!)

 

While I don't have an automated way to find the most dense small area, this spot (here) has 31 caches in a 1 mile radius--less than one tenth the maximum saturation limited by the proximity rule. What do you think the reaction would be for some unsuspecting park ranger if he found out his park had this kind of saturation? Remember, this is one tenth the maximum!

 

Obviously, even one tenth of the maximum saturation is a massive number of caches. Using the 528' proximity rule for cache saturation is ineffective in limiting shear numbers. Really the only thing I can think of where this is effective is so-called "power trails." Otherwise it is a hinderance.

 

If anyone really wanted limit saturation effectively, it should be a limit in the number of caches in an area. Make the limit for urban areas 10 in a half mile and you'd be at one tenth the present rule and still allow for close placements and high density. Couple this will your 100' firm minimum rule and you'd have much more fair rule. Both of these can be trivially programed into the site to advise the cache owner upon submission.

 

To expand this, bump the limit in rural areas, parks, and other more wide open places to 10 in a varying distance. For example, 10 in 1 mile for sub-urban areas. Maybe 10 in 2 miles in urban areas--which would also limit power trails.

 

You could limit further the number of caches owned by any one person, too, if you wanted.

 

For the third reason quoted, limit the number of caches in anyone park to X unless you can get permission.

 

These problems can be solved fairly easily with little burden on the reviewers. All it would take is some programming time and admitting there is a better way to it.

[Kirbert]

I do take exception to a completely hard and fast rule of 100' simply as a straight line measurement.  There should be exceptions to this rule, maybe on an appeal basis.

 

Hey, if you wanna argue for no minimum separation requirements at all, you won't get any arguments from me!

 

I would also encourage the fine folks who run this site to forcibly remove virts from the site...

 

Gee, I wonder how many others would concur with that sentiment? I gave up hunting them some time back. I just didn't care to find any more.

 

I tried to place one once and it was rejected. The reviewer told me he wouldn't accept a virtual unless I could convince him that it wasn't plausible to place a multi instead. Basically, use the location you intended as a virtual as the first stage, making the hunter collect clues for finding an actual cache somewhere else. I agreed that this was a much better idea in general. In that particular case it was not plausible because the area all around -- where a cache would presumably be hidden -- is scheduled to be completely dug up to deal with environmental contaminants and then new landscaping for a new park will be done. After all that's done, then I'll go back and place that multi.

 

...or at least disregard them when considering new placements. I would also disregard virtual stages in the process. There is absolutely no reason two multis can't share the same virtual stage if they wanted.

 

Agreed! If I had a cache listing rejected because it was near a virtual, I'd be miffed!

 

Another thing is the mystery cache. The coords are meaningless, they are not where the cache is, you have to decypher some clues to find it. But coords must be provided, so typically some nearby spot is given. If I had a cache listing rejected because it was near one of those, I'd be upset about that too.

 

Let's consider that you can place about 112 caches per square mile.

 

Excellent point! And I've seen a spot kinda like that, near downtown Traverse City in Michigan. The existence of so many caches -- I seem to recall something like 30 within a half mile -- didn't bother me at all. I actually didn't hunt any of them; I prefer more rural caching. To me, this addresses the whole idea of avoiding saturation because it takes the fun out of the pastime: if you don't want to hunt for a zillion caches all in one little area, then don't! Nobody is FORCING you to hunt down each and every one!

 

For the third reason quoted, limit the number of caches in anyone park to X unless you can get permission.

 

Might it make sense to limit the number of caches *by any individual geocacher* in a given park to just one? If that geocacher simply must place more than one thing in that park, it's gotta be a multi. But OTHER geocachers could still place in that park.

 

Interestingly, this wouldn't have affected the original case of the chain of parks. Each one of those parks is, in fact, a separate park, with its own name. They even differ in style.

[+briansnat]

If you haven't had problems with your reviewer, you're probably just lucky that you've drawn a good reviewer.

 

Or you've drawn a lazy one .

 

But we're supposed to be obtaining permission from landowners before placing, aren't we?

 

No.

 

However, perhaps what is needed here is some established procedure by which we can REPLACE existing caches. Like, if we want to place a cache somewhere but there's already one close by, contacting the placer of that cache and asking permission to pull it while placing the new one.

 

We already have it. Its called e-mail. Pretty neat thing that e-mail.

[Keystone]

1. A cache placed less than 528 feet away from truly "bogus" coordinates for a puzzle cache generally shouldn't violate the cache saturation guidelines.

 

2. Stay tuned for possible changes in the guidelines regarding the cache saturation issue as it relates to virtual waypoints, attendant to the upcoming full launch of Waymarking.

 

3. A programmed system to test for proximity problems will only work if the system also has a database of the intermediate and final stage coordinates for multicaches and puzzle caches. This functionality is under discussion as a top-priority request for the volunteer cache reviewers. We understand, however, if the site managers wish to focus on feature development that benefits a wider audience!

[+TMBFamily]

This topic looks dead but I want to add my two cents

 

1) I think this guidline should be more flexible. It should take into account differences in the caches (micro/regular) and the total number of caches in the area (stated as a goal in the guideline, but apparently ignored by reviewers). There should still be a hard limit to address the other goal (avoiding confusion) but 300'/100m is plenty.

 

2) If you don't want to be flexible then don't make it sound like you are. The phrases "rule of thumb" and "just a guideline" indicate flexibility that isn't there. The only apparent actual exception (separation by a barrrier) is not even mentioned!!!

Edited November 21, 2005 by TMBFamily

[+Moose Mob]

This topic looks dead but I want to add my two cents

 

1) I think this guidline should be more flexible.  It should take into account differences in the caches (micro/regular) and the total number of caches in the area (stated as a goal in the guideline, but apparently ignored by reviewers).  There should still be a hard limit to address the other goal (avoiding confusion) but 300'/100m is plenty.

 

2) If you don't want to be flexible then don't make it sound like you are.  The phrases "rule of thumb" and "just a guideline" indicate flexibility that isn't there.  The only apparent actual exception (separation by a barrrier) is not even mentioned!!!

Sounds like you were denied a cache listing?

 

I guess the question is... how much flexibility are you looking for? The guideline states 528 ft to avoid saturation. Typically exceptions are granted if there is a major obstacle exist between the two caches that would prevent the cacher from making a beeline from cache to the next. Also, excptions are granted if the location his significantly different that the other (e.g. not in the same park). And sometimes if the distance is 500 feet it'll just slide. Less than 400 feet in the same park... that would be way too close.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Moose Mob

[+TMBFamily]

Sounds like you were denied a cache listing?

 

I guess the question is... how much flexibility are you looking for? The guideline states 528 ft to avoid saturation. Typically exceptions are granted if there is a major obstacle exist between the two caches that would prevent the cacher from making a beeline from cache to the next. Also, excptions are granted if the location his significantly different that the other (e.g. not in the same park). And sometimes if the distance is 500 feet it'll just slide. Less than 400 feet in the same park... that would be way too close.

 

Sounds like you didn't read my post?

 

I obviously know about the one exception, but my point was it isn't mentioned in the guideline. Instead the guideline implies the limit is flexible based on the goal of the guideline which is apparently not true.

 

Please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that two different size caches hidden in different ways 400 feet apart in a park with no other caches is "way too close" while a series of micros hidden along a path 500 feet apart is good enough to let slide. No one has yet explained this in the entire thread. If it's a hard limit, fine. But don't then say "but this is just a guideline".

[+briansnat]

No one has yet explained this in the entire thread. If it's a hard limit, fine. But don't then say "but this is just a guideline".

 

They say its just a guidline because it is. Moose Mob mentioned several situations where it might be waived. Now if it was a hard limit, these wouldn't exist, would they?

[+Moose Mob]

Well, maybe it's time to cloud the issue with more stuff.

 

Geocaching.com does not own the container, the log book, the pen, the location or the contents. Geocaching.com oly lists it if it follows within certain parameters. There is a little flexibility with these parameters, but not as much as some people desire. Different people have different ideas of what the distance should be, thus a decison was made to go with 528 feet. That is an arbitrary number in the fact that there is no specific reason for that number. The line needed drawn someplace, and that is where the decision was made. Some folks would like to see it down to 100 feet, others would like to see it at 1 mile or more. There are a lot of opinions and they go in many directions. This is the place to express them.

[+sept1c_tank]

I have no opinion.

[+TMBFamily]

They say its just a guidline because it is. Moose Mob mentioned several situations where it might be waived. Now if it was a hard limit, these wouldn't exist, would they?

Yes, we all agree there is an exception for some kind of barrier. This is really not so much an exception as part of the definition of "distance" as used in the guideline. The point is, as I said in my original post: THIS IS NOT IN THE GUIDELINE.

[+StarBrand]

....Please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that two different size caches hidden in different ways 400 feet apart in a park with no other caches is "way too close" while a series of micros hidden along a path 500 feet apart is good enough to let slide. No one has yet explained this in the entire thread. If it's a hard limit, fine. But don't then say "but this is just a guideline".

For better or for worse 528 is the magic number - it is stated as an arbitrary value. Therefore - 400 foot is too close. Except for the many noted exceptions in this thread.

[+Moose Mob]

I have no opinion.

[+TMBFamily]

....Please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that two different size caches hidden in different ways 400 feet apart in a park with no other caches is "way too close" while a series of micros hidden along a path 500 feet apart is good enough to let slide.  No one has yet explained this in the entire thread.  If it's a hard limit, fine.  But don't then say "but this is just a guideline".

For better or for worse 528 is the magic number - it is stated as an arbitrary value. Therefore - 400 foot is too close. Except for the many noted exceptions in this thread.

Yes, I know there is no logic to it. If that is the way it's going to be can we at least make the guideline more clear? You say "many noted exceptions." I know of only one: something that would make the travel distance between the caches greater than 528'.

[+M-T-P]

I have worked with land managers and the reality of it is 'perception is everything'. If they go to the site and look at the geocaching.com map of the area they manage and see little cache icons neatly spaced every 528 feet apart they tend to freak out. If the same number of containers are in the park but done as a few well designed multi caches then the Land Manager might see three or four icons instead of 10-15. Some will take the time to find out how many actual physical containers are in the park, but most wont.

So, aren't you saying "deception is everything?"

[+Moose Mob]

....Please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that two different size caches hidden in different ways 400 feet apart in a park with no other caches is "way too close" while a series of micros hidden along a path 500 feet apart is good enough to let slide.  No one has yet explained this in the entire thread.  If it's a hard limit, fine.  But don't then say "but this is just a guideline".

For better or for worse 528 is the magic number - it is stated as an arbitrary value. Therefore - 400 foot is too close. Except for the many noted exceptions in this thread.

Yes, I know there is no logic to it. If that is the way it's going to be can we at least make the guideline more clear? You say "many noted exceptions." I know of only one: something that would make the travel distance between the caches greater than 528'.

I understand your anguish with this. It was even worse with determining a valid virtual cache and it "WOW factor". Now that is vague and as much as I like a good virtual, I am glad that Waymarking now handles it.

[+wimseyguy]

So, aren't you saying "deception is everything?"

No they are saying that perception is everything.

[+TMBFamily]

Yes, I know there is no logic to it.  If that is the way it's going to be can we at least make the guideline more clear?  You say "many noted exceptions."  I know of only one: something that would make the travel distance between the caches greater than 528'.

I understand your anguish with this. It was even worse with determining a valid virtual cache and it "WOW factor". Now that is vague and as much as I like a good virtual, I am glad that Waymarking now handles it.

My only anguish is with the inability of anybody here to address the issue of why the guideline is completely unclear as to what the possible exceptions to the rule are.

 

I'm completely resigned to the fact that I won't be able to list my cache if I place it where I think it would most benefit the geocaching community.

[+wimseyguy]

My only anguish is with the inability of anybody here to address the issue of why the guideline is completely unclear as to what the possible exceptions to the rule are.

 

I'm completely resigned to the fact that I won't be able to list my cache if I place it where I think it would most benefit the geocaching community.

Have you tried discussing this issue and specifics of the hide with your local reviewer? They may not see this discussion in this public forum; not all of them are active participants in here.

[+TMBFamily]

Have you tried discussing this issue and specifics of the hide with your local reviewer? They may not see this discussion in this public forum; not all of them are active participants in here.

Thanks for the suggestion. My local reviewer knows what the guideline means. I now know what the guideline means. Everyone here knows what the guideline means. The only people who don't are the ones who read the guideline because it doesn't say what it means.

[+fizzymagic]

They say its just a guidline because it is. Moose Mob mentioned several situations where it might be waived. Now if it was a hard limit, these wouldn't exist, would they?

No, "waiving" something implies it is a rule. Exceptions are for rules.

 

If it really were a guideline, then an approver might deny a cache further than 528 feet because it was in an oversaturated area, or might approve a cache without requesting explanatory input that was significantly closer than 500 feet.

 

AFAIK, approvers are required to justify every exception to the 528-foot rule. That's why it's a rule, not a guideline.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and there could be approvers out there that (for cache-sparse areas) don't even start to look too closely until the separation distance is less than 500 feet, and even then don't get particularly worked up until it's less than, say, 450 feet. If that's the case, then I'm willing to call it a "guideline." But if every cache placement less than exactly 528 feet requires extra information, then it's a "rule."

[+Moose Mob]

They say its just a guidline because it is. Moose Mob mentioned several situations where it might be waived.  Now if it was a hard limit, these wouldn't exist, would they?

No, "waiving" something implies it is a rule. Exceptions are for rules.

 

If it really were a guideline, then an approver might deny a cache further than 528 feet because it was in an oversaturated area, or might approve a cache without requesting explanatory input that was significantly closer than 500 feet.

 

AFAIK, approvers are required to justify every exception to the 528-foot rule. That's why it's a rule, not a guideline.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and there could be approvers out there that (for cache-sparse areas) don't even start to look too closely until the separation distance is less than 500 feet, and even then don't get particularly worked up until it's less than, say, 450 feet. If that's the case, then I'm willing to call it a "guideline." But if every cache placement less than exactly 528 feet requires extra information, then it's a "rule."

I have published caches under 528 feet without asking for reasons. Under 500ish feet I do look for a certain level of reasoning. Under 400 feet, it better be a good reason. I have had cachers argue when thier traditional cache was 28 feet away from another traditional they forgot was there.

 

Now as far as rule vs guideline, that's a different topic. For this topic, we will stick with guidelines have a level of flexibility, even if it's not as much as we may want.

[+fizzymagic]

I have published caches under 528 feet without asking for reasons. Under 500ish feet I do look for a certain level of reasoning. Under 400 feet, it better be a good reason.

Ah! Then it is a guideline! That's the kind of flexibility the word implies. Thanks!

 

I personally believe that there are some areas that have become so cache-dense that 528 feet is too close. But I suppose denying a listing based on that is never gonna happen, huh?

[Keystone]

Reference is made to any number of threads complaining that the "rule book" for cache placements is way too thick. I can sympathize with that, and I am glad that it's a far thinner book as a result of the most recent update.

 

The cache listing guidelines stress that the saturation guideline is a guideline, and if you have special circumstances, to please explain them in a note to reviewer. The situations are then handled on a case by case basis.

 

If we compiled a list of every situation where the guideline was bent, allowing caches less than 528 feet, the rule book would be much thicker:

 

within the margin of error of a GPS receiver (i.e., 525 or 515 feet rather than 528)

top and bottom of a cliff

top and bottom of a tall building with a rooftop garden open to the public

opposite banks of a river with no nearby bridge

opposite sides of a lake

opposite sides of an expressway with no pedestrian bridge nearby

adjudged minimal interference with the intermediate waypoint of another multicache

adjudged lack of confusion/saturation with a cache in a cemetery adjoining a park

less than 528 feet from a grandfathered virtual or webcam cache

 

... and so on. I thought of those without even pausing. There are others.

 

There is a desire for economy of words in the guidelines. For most cache owners, they work quite well.

[Keystone]

I have published caches under 528 feet without asking for reasons.  Under 500ish feet I do look for a certain level of reasoning.  Under 400 feet, it better be a good reason.

Ah! Then it is a guideline! That's the kind of flexibility the word implies. Thanks!

 

I personally believe that there are some areas that have become so cache-dense that 528 feet is too close. But I suppose denying a listing based on that is never gonna happen, huh?

Read the other paragraph of the cache saturation guideline. I've relied on it once in the past week alone to refuse listing a series of four caches, the closest of which was 515 feet apart from the next nearest, and the others being each .1 miles apart. See "Power Trail" using the forum search feature.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Keystone

[+TMBFamily]

I have published caches under 528 feet without asking for reasons. Under 500ish feet I do look for a certain level of reasoning. Under 400 feet, it better be a good reason. I have had cachers argue when thier traditional cache was 28 feet away from another traditional they forgot was there.

Do you think it might be a good idea to list those possible "good reason"s in the guideline or would you rather have people guess?

[+Moose Mob]

I have published caches under 528 feet without asking for reasons.  Under 500ish feet I do look for a certain level of reasoning.  Under 400 feet, it better be a good reason.  I have had cachers argue when thier traditional cache was 28 feet away from another traditional they forgot was there.

Do you think it might be a good idea to list those possible "good reason"s in the guideline or would you rather have people guess?

I would rather have people who plan on placing a cache closer than 528 feet ask first.

[Jeremy]

Do you think it might be a good idea to list those possible "good reason"s in the guideline or would you rather have people guess?

No. I can see how this would be a bad idea though. Not to mention "don't place them so close together" is a good frame of reference.

 

IMO 528' is far too reasonable.

[+TMBFamily]

Reference is made to any number of threads complaining that the "rule book" for cache placements is way too thick.

 

If we compiled a list of every situation where the guideline was bent, allowing caches less than 528 feet, the rule book would be much thicker:

 

within the margin of error of a GPS receiver (i.e., 525 or 515 feet rather than 528)

top and bottom of a cliff

top and bottom of a tall building with a rooftop garden open to the public

opposite banks of a river with no nearby bridge

opposite sides of a lake

opposite sides of an expressway with no pedestrian bridge nearby

adjudged minimal interference with the intermediate waypoint of another multicache

adjudged lack of confusion/saturation with a cache in a cemetery adjoining a park

less than 528 feet from a grandfathered virtual or webcam cache

 

... and so on. I thought of those without even pausing. There are others.

Most of these can be summed up one way: "A barrier that makes the travel distance between the caches greater than .1 mile" I think the guideline could be made shorter and more clear by removing the confusing weasle phrases and adding this as the general exception. (Thank you so much for addressing my point )

[Keystone]

Reference is made to any number of threads complaining that the "rule book" for cache placements is way too thick.

 

If we compiled a list of every situation where the guideline was bent, allowing caches less than 528 feet, the rule book would be much thicker:

 

within the margin of error of a GPS receiver (i.e., 525 or 515 feet rather than 528)

top and bottom of a cliff

top and bottom of a tall building with a rooftop garden open to the public

opposite banks of a river with no nearby bridge

opposite sides of a lake

opposite sides of an expressway with no pedestrian bridge nearby

adjudged minimal interference with the intermediate waypoint of another multicache

adjudged lack of confusion/saturation with a cache in a cemetery adjoining a park

less than 528 feet from a grandfathered virtual or webcam cache

 

... and so on.  I thought of those without even pausing. There are others.

Most of these can be summed up one way: "A barrier that makes the travel distance between the caches greater than .1 mile" I think the guideline could be made shorter and more clear by removing the confusing weasle phrases and adding this as the general exception. (Thank you so much for addressing my point )

No, those words are a concise summary of five of the nine examples I gave. Similar summaries of that category of exceptions have been provided earlier in the thread. There are other exceptions, not involving barriers like bodies of water, walls, etc., which I'm sure have been left out of my enumeration.

 

But no matter how long the enumeration became, it'd be a good while before we reached the point where we would say "389 feet is OK because the new cache is nicer than the old cache."

[+StarBrand]

....Most of these can be summed up one way: "A barrier that makes the travel distance between the caches greater than .1 mile" I think the guideline could be made shorter and more clear by removing the confusing weasle phrases and adding this as the general exception. (Thank you so much for addressing my point )

I think the bottom line here is that you think it should be less than 528.....but it isn't. I have always felt that the forums was the best place to hash out what were "reasonable" exceptions and that trying to make each exception explicit just leads to more confusion. The guidelines need some flexibility to cover the many hundreds of situations without having to spell each one out.

[+Jeep_Dog]

No, those words are a concise summary of five of the nine examples I gave. Similar summaries of that category of exceptions have been provided earlier in the thread. There are other exceptions, not involving barriers like bodies of water, walls, etc., which I'm sure have been left out of my enumeration.

Perhaps my opinion is unqualified, Keystone, but I believe you summed it up quite nicely in an "official" discussion here. That expounding on the saturation guidelines is quite clear and concise.

 

There I go again, reading the silly FAQs over on the "Getting Started Forum" again. I guess I am just a "radical" thinker...

[Keystone]

I find your opinion *highly* qualified, Jeep_Dog, because you agree with me.

[+tozainamboku]

One thing that is clear is that the following are not reasons for an exception to relax the guidelines:

 

1) There is a string of small parks, some less than .1 mile from one another, and I would like to hide a cache in each one of them.

 

2) There is a nice hiking/biking trail and I would like to hide a series of caches on this trail every 528 ft.

 

Ok, so #2 is within (the first part of) the guidelines. As Keystone pointed out, caches can still be turned down for being too saturated.

 

I believe we have a saturation rule/guideline because without it we could have a cache in every lightpole in the Walmart's parking lot or in every tree in a park. Some arbitrary distance had to be chosen as a guideline so that this extreme situation could never happen.

 

For an example of an exception that was made that didn't involve a barrier look a my cache GCJ1KN. It was placed the same day as another cacher placed this cache 152 ft. away. The reviewer decided to approve both caches as one is a traditional and the other is the start of a multi-cache.

[+TMBFamily]

Most of these can be summed up one way:  "A barrier that makes the travel distance between the caches greater than .1 mile"  I think the guideline could be made shorter and more clear by removing the confusing weasle phrases and adding this as the general exception.  (Thank you so much for addressing my point  )

No, those words are a concise summary of five of the nine examples I gave. Similar summaries of that category of exceptions have been provided earlier in the thread. There are other exceptions, not involving barriers like bodies of water, walls, etc., which I'm sure have been left out of my enumeration.

 

But no matter how long the enumeration became, it'd be a good while before we reached the point where we would say "389 feet is OK because the new cache is nicer than the old cache."

Well, last I checked 5 was most of 9. I get the distinct impression from this topic that the majority of exceptions are the barrier one (other than the trivial 520 vs 528). The rest are technical issues and certainly shouldn't be in the guidelines. I don't imagine that you think there's a problem in that people don't place caches because they're afraid you won't make an exception for them.

 

You reviewers are so clever to look up peoples details for ammo

As I said, I'm resigned as to that listing even though I don't believe it's against the goal of the guideline. My beef is that I wasted my time arguing with my reviewer based on the goal of the guideline not knowing the only general exception was the barrier one. I was trying to figure out why he was so fixated on that. Another way to address this is to admit that the goal is to not let cachers get to the next cache without going at least .1 mile.

 

I'm off, but here's my suggestiong for the wording of the guideline (sorry, 10 word longer):

 

As a rule caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance with the goal of reducing the number of caches hidden in a particular area and reducing confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. In general an exception can only be made if there is some barrier making the travel distance between the caches greater than .10 miles. This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

[+Moose Mob]

One thing that is clear is that the following are not reasons for an exception to relax the guidelines:

 

1) There is a string of small parks, some less than .1 mile from one another, and I would like to hide a cache in each one of them.

 

2) There is a nice hiking/biking trail and I would like to hide a series of caches on this trail every 528 ft.

 

Ok, so #2 is within (the first part of) the guidelines. As Keystone pointed out, caches can still be turned down for being too saturated.

 

I believe we have a saturation rule/guideline because without it we could have a cache in every lightpole in the Walmart's parking lot or in every tree in a park. Some arbitrary distance had to be chosen as a guideline so that this extreme situation could never happen.

 

For an example of an exception that was made that didn't involve a barrier look a my cache GCJ1KN. It was placed the same day as another cacher placed this cache 152 ft. away. The reviewer decided to approve both caches as one is a traditional and the other is the start of a multi-cache.

1) A string of parks 528 ft apart? Unlikely, but possible. As far as your example though, there is easily examples of where a person "could" places caches 528 ft apart from each other.

 

2) As you mentioned - 528 ft apart would be a power trails. Power trails are activley discouraged. If the goal is to expose a cacher to the bike/walking trail, please make it a multi.

[+TMBFamily]

Perhaps my opinion is unqualified, Keystone, but I believe you summed it up quite nicely in an "official" discussion here. That expounding on the saturation guidelines is quite clear and concise.

 

There I go again, reading the silly FAQs over on the "Getting Started Forum" again. I guess I am just a "radical" thinker...

Yes, exactly. The only general exception is the barrier one. QED

[+Team Silver]

i think im going to go there, but, i think it is to keep an area from being saturated with lame micros. on the other hand, i think that the guidelines/rules are great the way they are.

[Keystone]

Well, last I checked 5 was most of 9. I get the distinct impression from this topic that the majority of exceptions are the barrier one (other than the trivial 520 vs 528). The rest are technical issues and certainly shouldn't be in the guidelines. I don't imagine that you think there's a problem in that people don't place caches because they're afraid you won't make an exception for them.

 

You reviewers are so clever to look up peoples details for ammo

As I said, I'm resigned as to that listing even though I don't believe it's against the goal of the guideline. My beef is that I wasted my time arguing with my reviewer based on the goal of the guideline not knowing the only general exception was the barrier one. I was trying to figure out why he was so fixated on that. Another way to address this is to admit that the goal is to not let cachers get to the next cache without going at least .1 mile.

 

I'm off, but here's my suggestiong for the wording of the guideline (sorry, 10 word longer):

 

As a rule caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance with the goal of reducing the number of caches hidden in a particular area and reducing confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. In general an exception can only be made if there is some barrier making the travel distance between the caches greater than .10 miles. This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

I would say that the majority of the exceptions I've granted to the cache saturation guideline have involved distances of between 500 and 528 feet, without any in-depth consideration of whether there's a physical barrier. The hider probably believed in good faith that he was far enough away from the other cache. With the accuracy of consumer GPS receivers, who's to say that the reported distance of 519 feet wasn't actually 503 or 542?

 

Your rewrite just screwed hundreds of geocachers for whom a break would have been cut. Careful what you ask for.

 

If I wasn't rushing to leave the office, I'd review my notes or do a search of our reviewer's forum to remind myself of some other examples that have nothing to do with physical barriers. Cutting a break on proximity to a webcam prior to this month was a common one in the past. Anything to tip that 5 out of 9 balance.