Geocache Saturation Rules

[+briansnat]

IMO 528' is far too reasonable.

I agree. Sheesh its not even the length of two soccer fields.

[+M-T-P]

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

No they are saying that perception is everything.

Hiding the truth is deception! Hiding multiple physical containers as a multi so it deliberately appears to landmanagers as a single icon is "deception." Land managers don't care how many icons are on their property, they care about how many physical caches are on their property.

[+briansnat]

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

No they are saying that perception is everything.

Hiding the truth is deception! Hiding multiple physical containers as a multi so it deliberately appears to landmanagers as a single icon is "deception." Land managers don't care how many icons are on their property, they care about how many physical caches are on their property.

So you're saying all the waypoints of a multi should appear on the cache map?

[+wimseyguy]

Actually most of the land managers and park rangers I have spoken to are more concerned with permission, and how much traffic will be created by the caches, not the number of containers. Since multis tend to get hunted less often, they aren't bothered by the extra stages.

What's your personal experience been?

Edited November 23, 2005 by wimseyguy

[+fizzymagic]

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.

For that, my friend, you get a Gold Star.

[+budd-rdc]

There have been cases of a hider asking another cacher to archive a cache, so a newer (and possibly better) cache can be placed to meet the 528' "rule."

 

It doesn't hurt to try this tact, especially if you think your newer cache has a better location. You might even get community support if the container size is larger.

[+TMBFamily]

There have been cases of a hider asking another cacher to archive a cache, so a newer (and possibly better) cache can be placed to meet the 528' "rule."

 

It doesn't hurt to try this tact, especially if you think your newer cache has a better location. You might even get community support if the container size is larger. 

Actually I didn't even bring up this particular cache thinking I could get it approved; that was the reviewers digging up stuff about me. In this case the cache owner has not responded for a week to a "disable" on the listing. If the cache is archived before I get around to looking for a new home for my cache that's fine. Until either of those things happen I accept their decision, though I disagree with it.

(edited because I missunderstood something budd-rdc said)

Edited November 24, 2005 by TMBFamily

[+TMBFamily]

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. 

 

...

Did you actually think I meant you should reject those listings? As I said from the start, though I disagree with the way the guideline is implemented, I see there is no hope trying to change that. My point in bringing this up for discussion was only to explore ways to help someone like myself (who doesn't understand why a park with 2 caches at 400feet is staturated while the same park with 2 caches at 500feet is not) to understand how these things are really decided. This topic was started by someone in a very similar situation. Maybe there are just two of us in which case I'll leave it be. But maybe if the guideline reflected the reality of the reviewers' attitude you would even get fewer of those 500-527 foot cases besides being able to get through to a dummy like me faster. Then everyone would be happier.

[+Renegade Knight]

...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.

Discouraged by this site. Enjoyed by cachers. A 6 part mulit and 6 caches all 528' apart are pretty much the same thing. Minimally spaced caches along a trail.

 

The 528' rule is arbitrary, the dislike of actually spacing caches at 528' is also arbitary. If 528' is ok, then it should be ok in general. The only time it shouldn't be is when there are circumstances specific to a single location. Then that's a local issue.

 

The way the cache saturation rule works is like the alternative minimum tax.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I recently had a cache published that was 485' from another existing cache, so there is some flexibility. The cache was across a deep creek with no bridge, so it did have the necessary barrier.

That being said...

 

I made a mistake. The other cache was on my ignore list (hadn't been found in a year and a 1/2 and likely isn't there) so it wasn't in my GPS. If I had known I was 45' too close I would have moved MY cache, even though the spot was good. I just don't look at areas closer than 528 feet as available.

 

I usually can find a perfectly good spot 529' away from the nearest cache.

[Kirbert]

1) A string of parks 528 ft apart? Unlikely, but possible.

 

A string of parks 528 ft apart was what incited this thread in the first place.

 

I've enjoyed reading the replies, especially the ones about the guidelines being flexible when they're really not. Yeah, you approve caches that are 20 feet closer than they're supposed to be, but 400' is "way too close". That's about as flexible as a brick.

 

I may be in the minority here, but I will state for the record that I *don't* like the 528' minimum, whether flexible or not. I agree that cache saturation is heinous, but the 528' minimum doesn't even address that problem; there are some areas where there aren't a dozen interesting places in the entire TOWN to hide a geocache, but that hasn't stopped the locals from stuffing a hundred micros in every nook and cranny and Wal-Mart parking lot light pole.

 

The problem is, there are also some places where there are LOTS of interesting places to hide geocaches in a relatively small area -- such as a chain of one-block-long parks in a downtown or several interesting headstones in the same cemetery. Who is best qualified to judge how many caches would be appropriate for this area: the geocacher who is there doing the hiding, or a reviewer who's never been to the town? Or, even worse, somebody making up arbitrary rules?

 

I would like to see one hard and fast rule: caches must be at least 100 feet apart. The reason for that one is technical; any closer and somebody might find one cache while looking for another.

 

Beyond that, I'd suggest that whenever a cache is placed within 528' of an existing cache, the reviewer should ask the placer if he is aware there's another cache that close. If he is and wishes to have his cache listed anyway, it should be listed. Period, no arguments. If a geocacher comes to an area and finds that there are more caches than he's interested in hunting, the solution is simple: don't hunt for all of them.

 

And if some park manager doesn't like it, invite him to stipulate exactly how many caches he will permit in his park. Once that many have been planted, reject all others, regardless of distance, and tell prospective placers that if they want a placement approved they will have to convince someone else to pull their cache.

[+Lil Devil]

I may be in the minority here, but I will state for the record that I *don't* like the 528' minimum, whether flexible or not.

I wholeheartedly agree with you! I think 0.1 mile is completely inadequate and the guideline should be changed to 0.25 or maybe even 0.5 mile. Too many parks (and even parking lots!) are being overrun by a multitude of caches. If we increase the distance between them, hopefully the ones that do get placed will actually be in interesting locations.

[+TMBFamily]

Go Kirbert!

 

I'd go with 100m for absolute minium though... I'm generous.

 

I just listed a small cache that is in the same park as a micro. I lucked out in the sense that the *only* viable hiding place in the park just happened to be .105 miles from the micro that was already there. There is absolutely no difference in any meaningful way regarding cache saturation between this cache and one I had denied in another park. The parks are similar sizes. Both only have the two caches. In both cases I placed my cache so people would have some room for trading and TBs. In both cases my placement was based on the best hiding spot. The only difference is that the one that was denied has about a 20 second shorter walk between caches. I'd say if a new listing is closer than even .2 miles from the nearest existing cache it should be examined for cache saturation, and then ALL factors should be considered. Why limit yourself for no reason? No one has yet given a reason for the 528' rule other than "I like it that way".

Sometimes 528' is too close, sometimes it is too far. Why have a hard limit that can't be justified? Just let the reviewer and owner decide it on the merits. ALL the merits!

Edited November 30, 2005 by TMBFamily

[+FloridaCacher]

I seldom read and even less do I post to the forums here at GC.com so it was with a bit of surprize that I came across this thread. It is with great concern that as Kirbert's local reviewer I am percieved as a PITA. I think he would be hard pressed to find 10 other cachers in the State of Florida with the same opinion.

 

One thing I would like to say as approvers we don't have the luxury of rewriting the guidelines each time a new cache is submitted, we are here to simply apply the guidleines as written. We do have some leeway in applying them to paticular caches as they are submitted. Using Keystones list of allowances for the 528 ft guideline I have used most of those in applicable situations. It is not our place to allow our personal opinions or feelings to come into the review process simply to apply the guidelines to the best of our understandingof the situation.

 

I would like to say that the previous caches that Kirbert quoted probably should not have been listed the way they were but that does not give precedence for any future cache to be placed in a similiar fashion. I offered to work with Kirbert in a Spirit of trying to get the caches approved within reason and the guidelines. His response to me when it couldn't be done the way He wanted it done was to just pull all of his caches and be done with it.

 

I just want to make one last point I am willing to work with any cacher who is willing to work with me and the guidelines to find the best possible solutions to placing a cache/s within the guidelines we have to work with. I cannot speak to anyone's actions other than my own but I find it very disheartening for Kirbert to come into to this forum and act as though he was not given ample oppurtunity to bring these caches or ther caches he has been questioned about into compliance with the guidelines. The attitude of if I can do it my way then I will take my toys and go home have no place here in my opinion. It is appropiate to have a difference of opinion and it is appropiate to have an open discussion about understanding why the guidelines are witten the way they are but it is also appropiate to work with what we have and accept other options when offered.

 

FloridaCacher

[+BadAndy]

I don't have any problem with the guideline as it is. The 2 times I've needed to place a cache that infringed on the 528 feet mark, I've explained the reasoning for it, and both were approved. Granted they were still over 500 feet apart, but this does show that the guideline is just a guideline. If you've got a good reason and it isn't within ground zero range, I'm sure it'll be approved...at least around my parts it is.

[+TMBFamily]

Once I found out about "Keystones list of allowances" I didn't have any issue with my local reviewer. I just wish this was public and in a prominent place so we wouldn't have so many hard feelings. See other topic for some suggestions:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...opic=114723&hl=

 

(Maybe that topic should be in the website forum though?)

 

I wish people would quit posting about how the guideline is just a guideline because the limit is actually 500 feet when they say 528. That's not the issue any more than it would be useful to point out that you can drive 10 miles over the speed limit when the discussion is about if the speed limit is too low (or to high). Everyone knows that. I don't mean to be mean, but it is disrupting the discussion.

 

I would love "to have an open discussion about understanding why the guidelines are witten the way they are" but no one is willing to justify having a hard distance* limit of 528' when cache density and cache differences are not really considered (see my post above about what I think makes sense).

 

*distance here is defined to be travel distance between caches and subject to nominal leniency.

 

Actually there is hope. I noticed from a Keystone post that he made an exception for a nearby webcam. It's not a far stretch to virtuals (if they last) and then in a few years maybe micros.

[Keystone]

I wish people would quit posting about how the guideline is just a guideline because the limit is actually 500 feet when they say 528.

Uh oh, should I go and archive all the exceptions I've made for caches under 500 feet?

 

Actually there is hope.  I noticed from a Keystone post that he made an exception for a nearby webcam.  It's not a far stretch to virtuals (if they last) and then in a few years maybe micros. 

 

Since the November update to the listing guidelines, occasioned by the soft launch of Waymarking.com, the 528 foot test is no longer relevant in regard to existing "grandfathered" webcam and virtual caches. So go ahead and hide a physical cache 50 feet away from an existing virtual where the cache owner swore up and down that a physical cache could not be placed.

[+TMBFamily]

I wish people would quit posting about how the guideline is just a guideline because the limit is actually 500 feet when they say 528.

Uh oh, should I go and archive all the exceptions I've made for caches under 500 feet?

 

 

Did you read the whole post? I allow for those exceptions. Why bring up issues addressed ad infinitem on this same thread?

 

Since the November update to the listing guidelines, occasioned by the soft launch of Waymarking.com, the 528 foot test is no longer relevant in regard to existing "grandfathered" webcam and virtual caches.  So go ahead and hide a physical cache 50 feet away from an existing virtual where the cache owner swore up and down that a physical cache could not be placed.   

 

That's great news Now, where were we supposed to read about that? Gee, 50 feet! Even I think that's too close . (surely there's never been a cache 300 feet from a virtual that was denied listing, eh?) Where was that list of conditions and distances again? 528, 500, 475, Do I hear 450? Yes, that's been mentioned by Keystone.

 

How 'bout virtual stages? How is an existing virtual stage different than a "grandfathered" virtual? In a real sense, not in the "they're dead to me" sense.

[+Moose Mob]

Since virtual stages of a multi-cache is a valid new cache type, they must still meet the proximaty guideline. It doesn't seem right if you look at that point as a virtual, but it does if you look at it as a part of a multi. New Virtuals are not getting published, and new multi caches are.

[Keystone]

Since the November update to the listing guidelines, occasioned by the soft launch of Waymarking.com, the 528 foot test is no longer relevant in regard to existing "grandfathered" webcam and virtual caches.  So go ahead and hide a physical cache 50 feet away from an existing virtual where the cache owner swore up and down that a physical cache could not be placed.   

 

That's great news Now, where were we supposed to read about that? Gee, 50 feet! Even I think that's too close . (surely there's never been a cache 300 feet from a virtual that was denied listing, eh?) Where was that list of conditions and distances again? 528, 500, 475, Do I hear 450? Yes, that's been mentioned by Keystone.

 

How 'bout virtual stages? How is an existing virtual stage different than a "grandfathered" virtual? In a real sense, not in the "they're dead to me" sense.

I've talked about the answers to these questions in several forum threads in the past month, including a summary of the changes to the listing guidelines. The post that most efficiently answers your questions is found here in the Frequently Asked Questions thread that is pinned at the top of the Getting Started Forum. But the questions are also addressed by the listing guidelines themselves; the other posts are there simply to get the information out in a manner that's easier to digest.

[+TMBFamily]

Since virtual stages of a multi-cache is a valid new cache type, they must still meet the proximaty guideline.  It doesn't seem right if you look at that point as a virtual, but it does if you look at it as a part of a multi.  New Virtuals are not getting published, and new multi caches are.

I meant it the other way around (new cache near old virtual stage) but I think what you say applies either way. Somehow putting a cache near (400 feet from) an existing virtual stage is "bad" but putting one 25 feet from a "grandfathered" virtual is just fine. Do I have that right? Why was that again? "Them's the rules"?

[+TMBFamily]

That's great news  Now, where were we supposed to read about that?  Gee, 50 feet!  Even I think that's too close .  (surely there's never been a cache 300 feet from a virtual that was denied listing, eh?)  Where was that list of conditions and distances again?  528, 500, 475, Do I hear 450?  Yes, that's been mentioned by Keystone.

 

How 'bout virtual stages?  How is an existing virtual stage different than a "grandfathered" virtual?  In a real sense, not in the "they're dead to me" sense.

I've talked about the answers to these questions in several forum threads in the past month, including a summary of the changes to the listing guidelines. The post that most efficiently answers your questions is found here in the Frequently Asked Questions thread that is pinned at the top of the Getting Started Forum. But the questions are also addressed by the listing guidelines themselves; the other posts are there simply to get the information out in a manner that's easier to digest.

Good to hear the FAQ is being maintained. I guess the guidelines and FAQ are short enough we could just scan them for changes every time we're thinking of placing a cache but I was still hoping for a single place to go to look for changes to guidelines and/or interpretations thereof.

[+Moose Mob]

Since virtual stages of a multi-cache is a valid new cache type, they must still meet the proximaty guideline.  It doesn't seem right if you look at that point as a virtual, but it does if you look at it as a part of a multi.  New Virtuals are not getting published, and new multi caches are.

I meant it the other way around (new cache near old virtual stage) but I think what you say applies either way. Somehow putting a cache near (400 feet from) an existing virtual stage is "bad" but putting one 25 feet from a "grandfathered" virtual is just fine. Do I have that right? Why was that again? "Them's the rules"?

Effectively, yes.

[Keystone]

I guess the guidelines and FAQ are short enough we could just scan them for changes every time we're thinking of placing a cache but I was still hoping for a single place to go to look for changes to guidelines and/or interpretations thereof.

Another question of yours that I've previously and directly answered in another thread. But you gotta admire persistency and consistency.

[+TMBFamily]

I guess the guidelines and FAQ are short enough we could just scan them for changes every time we're thinking of placing a cache but I was still hoping for a single place to go to look for changes to guidelines and/or interpretations thereof.

Another question of yours that I've previously and directly answered in another thread. But you gotta admire persistency and consistency.

Well, I keep being reminded by events how nice it would be to have such a thing so every time a new reason to have it comes up I mention it. (actually I was looking forward to your future comments in that thread, but it seems to be dying.)

 

While you're listening let me ask the unanswered question again. What is the reason for the hard/soft 528 foot limit that is beyond what is necessary to avoid confusion? (Note: the number of sub 528 foot approvals do not make the number any less important. Also, I fully agree that even 528 is sometimes too close. I fully understand the reasoning behind discouraging "power trails". The reasons for this, unlike those for the 528 foot limit, are logical and go to the heart of the saturation guideline.)

[Keystone]

What is the reason for the hard/soft 528 foot limit that is beyond what is necessary to avoid confusion?

Both reasons are stated expressly in the text of the Cache Saturation Guideline.

[+Renegade Knight]

I may be in the minority here, but I will state for the record that I *don't* like the 528' minimum, whether flexible or not.

I wholeheartedly agree with you! I think 0.1 mile is completely inadequate and the guideline should be changed to 0.25 or maybe even 0.5 mile. Too many parks (and even parking lots!) are being overrun by a multitude of caches. If we increase the distance between them, hopefully the ones that do get placed will actually be in interesting locations.

Oh come on, then you would make it so the WalMart Micros actually start blocking those parks.

[+TMBFamily]

What is the reason for the hard/soft 528 foot limit that is beyond what is necessary to avoid confusion?

Both reasons are stated expressly in the text of the Cache Saturation Guideline.

You're saying 528 feet is needed to avoid confusion? I thought we all agreed it's much too simplistic to use a linear distance to determine saturation of an area. Case in point: I just placed a cache in a park .1 miles from another smaller cache in the same park. Approved without question. Cache in a similar size park 400 feet from a smaller cache--no way, no how, not even close to OK. WHY? 30 second shorter walk is some sort of reason to deny cachers another cache. That park is a few miles from my house and it took me a year to visit because of the problems with the other cache. At the same time I could put 3 poorly hidden caches in that same park and the 528 foot rule does you no good. Yes, I know you can deny it on density basis, but you don't need the 528 foot rule for that! All that rule does is hurt. (see Renegade Knight's good point also)

 

"'scuse me while I..."

 

[+Moose Mob]

A long time a go in a land far away, there was a guy recording cache locations. Her realized that they can't be stcked on top of each other, but wasn't sure what the minimum distance should be. 528 feet was a decision made arbitrarily. There was no technical or community opinion to base it on. There just needed to be a minimum distance.

 

Now, some folks feel that 528 ft is too close. Others feel it is too far.

 

Here's where the war starts.

 

If you are a person that feels the limit should be less, how would you convince the people that firmly believe that the distance should be increased to 1/2 mile to reduce it instead?

[Jeremy]

I think the maximum safe whinging distance should be at least 4 posts.

[+tands]

I think the maximum safe whinging distance should be at least 4 posts.

Can't stay out of a fight, can ya?

 

- T of TandS

[+TMBFamily]

how would you convince the people that firmly believe that the distance should be increased to 1/2 mile to reduce it instead?

Well, I think a 1/2 mile is fine in some cases (Large forests, anywhere in Kansas etc.) but .1 is too limiting in others (urban/suburban parks). I think a simple check like .1 or even .2 miles would be an indicator for the reviewer to take a look at saturation and then consider all the factors. As we all agree, there needs to be a bare minimum to avoid confusion. I like 100m. So I don't disagree with 1/2 mile at all, but I would leave it to the reviewers to decide what "saturation" means for their own areas.

 

However, I have a modest proposal that I think would satisfy everyone

 

Just put in the straight simple 100m limit (let the site handle that automatically) and then add an option to queries that specifies a minium distance between caches. If you like 1/2 mile, go for it. Then, if any caches in the results are within the specified distance one of them will be deleted from the hit list. Presto chango, you'll never be bothered by those icky closely spaced caches again. Oh, you could even optimize it to give you the most hits without going under the limit, but why bother? The important thing is to never have to see 2 caches close together, right? And those pesky land managers? The default limit would be .1 miles so they will be able to sleep at night "knowing" that there aren't any clumps of caches in their domain. It's not deception, right? Just another way of looking at things. They certainly aren't sophisticated enough to change the default distance (or look at a multi-cache description), right? I don't see how this can fail to please everybody. We all get to pick our own limit.

[+Moose Mob]

There wasn't a lot of technical reasoning why it should be closer than 528 ft. It CAN be closer as mentioned.

 

As far as those with with limited abilities, such as handicapped or younger cachers cacheing by bicycle, do we need that extreme cache density? I haven't done the math (help me fizzy!) Say there is potentialy 300 caches in a 1 mile radius of a person's home, does there need to be 1200 instead? (or 10 according to the 1/2 mile folks)

 

Of course, I wouldn't mind hearing from folks why the limit should be 1/2 or 1/4 mile either. (this can be an emotional topic, so please keep it civil.)

[+TMBFamily]

There wasn't a lot of technical reasoning why it should be closer than 528 ft.  It CAN be closer as mentioned.

Well, I don't understand your question. I'm not telling anyone they have to put their caches closer, they are telling me I can't list my cache if it is. So it seems to me they should have to explain why my listing is an inconvenience to them. I was hoping my modest proposal above might clarify who is asking what of whom. Of course I understand that Groundspeak is free to do what it wants. But as has been mentioned before it's to everyones benfit to avoid the "I'll take my ball and go home" mentality.

 

In any case this topic was started with a post describing in detail a reason a lower limit would be beneficial. I have detailed my reasons before several times. The last time was just 5 posts ago. Renegade Knight gave another reason just before that. There are as many potential reasons as there are potential cache sites.

 

Say there is potentialy 300 caches in a 1 mile radius of a person's home, does there need to be 1200 instead?  (or 10 according to the 1/2 mile folks)

No one here has ever claimed the .1 mile rule creates too strict a limit on cache density. That's what's known as a straw man argument. In fact, you make our real arguement for us. The .1 mile rule does not meaningfully limit cache density. So why have a limit beyond what is required to avoid confusion? The only effect is to deny listings to caches that some people think would be beneficial to geocaching. Density must be (and is) addressed in other ways besides minimum distance. If other people don't think caches closer than some arbitrary minimum are beneficial is there some reason they can't just ignore them?

 

Three reasons I can think of:

 

1) land owners getting POd. But they are free to adopt any rules they wish to which would be enforced on top of these guidelines.

 

2) Stat hounds inflating their stats. If that is an issue for you I have to ask who is obsessed with stats.

 

3) So many caches I don't know what to do. As RK says, how do you know the better cache isn't the one being eliminated? Maybe the best way of knowing the value of a cache is how hard the owner is willing to fight for it? Or ... tum ta ta! Rating System!

 

To sum up: The minimum should be lowered because it arbitrarily limits caches while not addressing density and is beyond what is necessary to limit confusion.

[+tands]

The only time we were affected by the minimum distance rule was when we were honestly trying to make a handicap-accessible cache hide. It was about 400 feet from an ok micro hide that was in a non-handicap accessible location in a nearby park. We were disappointed in this case, because handicap accessible hide locations are pretty hard to find, so we weren't able to make this hide.

 

If exceptions are made, perhaps this is a good category to make them in. If a really nice area that's scenic and neat has a couple of properly-spaced non-handicap-accessible hides in it, shouldn't there be an exception on the density rule to allow handicapped cachers to be able to hunt for a handicap-accessible cache in that area and experience its beauty while hunting for a cache also? Or do the density rules effectively make that area off-limits to handicapped cachers? I feel very strongly on this so I'll stop now 'cuz I'm on the verge of a diatribe.

 

- T of TandS

[+GeoJunkie]

The one thing I'd like to know is, with all of this fretting over the number of feet, how did this cache get approved only 95 feet from this one? They were so closed together that the drift on my GPS brought me to the wrong cache! I found these a couple weeks after I was denied placing the last stage of a multi 400 feet away from another cache.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

The .1 mile rule does not meaningfully limit cache density.

 

I keep reading this on the thread and just don't get the logic...

 

The .1 guideline allows only one lamp post hide at Wal-Mart

 

The .1 guideline often allows only one cache per cemetary, rather than one behind every confederate soldiers' gravestone

 

The .1 guideline limits small city parks from being overrun. Most of the ones I've cached in only have room for 1-3.

 

I believe the .1 guideline is the only tool in place that addresses density AT ALL, and it certainly is effective in the areas that I've cached in. And I definitely believe that cache density has to be addressed! A 100' urban distance could create an awful proliferation problem.

 

I got into caching a little late, and many of the parks in my town were "full" and didn't allow enough room for me to hide caches there. That's alright. It doesn't HAVE to have one of my caches. If one of those owners archive one of theirs, I may put a new out there. But the .1 rule pushed me to find new inventive places. Like others have said, 528 feet ain't that big a deal. I've yet to have a hard time finding a great place to hide a cache.

 

One thing the proponents of a distance change hasn't proven to me: How would changing the .1 guideline IMPROVE the quality of caching in general? Other than increasing the number of caches overall DRAMATICALLY, (yes, it would be dramatic) I don't see any intrinsic value.

[+TMBFamily]

The .1 mile rule does not meaningfully limit cache density.

...

I believe the .1 guideline is the only tool in place that addresses density AT ALL, and it certainly is effective in the areas that I've cached in. And I definitely believe that cache density has to be addressed! A 100' urban distance could create an awful proliferation problem.

Again with the straw men. The post you quoted included the statement "Density must be (and is) addressed in other ways". For example power trails are discouraged. I have no argument with the goal of the saturation guideline and have said so from the start. In fact, I don't think the wording of the guideline needs to be changed (unless it continues to be enforced the way it is). Maybe you were confusing the .1 "rule" with the entire saturation guideline. What I'm saying is that approval should be based on density and potential confusion, not on exactly how many feet closer the cache is than 528 feet. Second straw man: No one (not even the originator of the thread) has suggested unrestricted listings down to 100 feet.

 

Like others have said, 528 feet ain't that big a deal. I've yet to have a hard time finding a great place to hide a cache.

Hey, I've placed two caches during this discussion. I'm not just sitting here brooding. I had given up on this but people kept on posting and then Moose Mob asked... I can live with the limit if I have to, I just don't wish to. If you don't wish to be bothered by extra caches see my modest proposal above.

 

One thing the proponents of a distance change hasn't proven to me: How would changing the .1 guideline IMPROVE the quality of caching in general? Other than increasing the number of caches overall DRAMATICALLY, (yes, it would be dramatic) I don't see any intrinsic value.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Just think of any urban/suburban cache that you had fun finding. Cleverly hidden, cool container, whatever. Now realize that that cache could have been blocked if a lame micro had been stuck in a tree two blocks away first. (Or, until 2 weeks ago, if a church down the street had been made a virtual.)

 

It doesn't have to be dramatic if the reviewers just consider all the factors when approving caches.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

What I'm saying is that approval should be based on density and potential confusion, not on exactly how many feet closer the cache is than 528 feet

 

You may be correct that MORE guidelines may be required as well, but it is no straw man argument to say that the .1 guideline does provide relief from oversaturation. My point is reducing the .1 guideline will in no way HELP the oversaturation issue. Your logic seems to be the distance guideline doesn't completely solve the density problem, so let's not have a distance guideline. Add to the guideline if necessary, but don't take away from it.

 

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Just think of any urban/suburban cache that you had fun finding. Cleverly hidden, cool container, whatever. Now realize that that cache could have been blocked if a lame micro had been stuck in a tree two blocks away first.

 

I don't understand why this so hard to understand either. There's plenty of locations to place that cleverly hidden, cool container that is NOT within 528 feet of another cache. It is not "blocked', you just have to move it about two football field lengths away. And if you do have to find a different neighborhood park to put it in because of this guideline, than yes, the .1 distance HAS helped alleviate the over-proliferation of caches in that area.

 

If the cache owner came up with the cool container, and had the ingenious hide idea, surely they're skilled enough to find another cache location a little further from other caches. Allow room for each cache to breathe!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The .1 mile rule does not meaningfully limit cache density.

 

I keep reading this on the thread and just don't get the logic...

 

The .1 guideline allows only one lamp post hide at Wal-Mart

<snip>

Most Wal-Mart parking lots are large enough to allow 4 or more caches at 0.1 miles apart. 528 feet isn't as much as you think it is.

[+sept1c_tank]

Considering the entire surface of the earth (including polar regions and water), what would be the maximum # of caches that could legally be placed, given the 528 ft. rule?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Most Wal-Mart parking lots are large enough to allow 4 or more caches at 0.1 miles apart.528 feet isn't as much as you think it is. 

 

Exactly!

 

 

The .1 mile rule does not meaningfully limit cache density.Density must be (and is) addressed in other ways besides minimum distance. 

 

A distance guideline is the single MOST important tool to meaningfully limit cache density that can be put into place. ADDITIONAL guidelines could be implemented to improve the situation even more (not sure if that's needed) but the distance guideline would still be the most effective measure.

 

The only reason to loosen the distance guideline would be to allow MORE caches in a smaller area. How would that meaningfully IMPROVE oversaturation of urban area caches?

[+nfa]

Considering the entire surface of the earth (including polar regions and water), what would be the maximum # of caches that could legally be placed, given the 528 ft. rule?

 

I think it would be between 5 and 6 billion, not allowing for the placement of hydrocaches...

 

Speaking for myself, I would like to see the cache density guideline changed to one every 0.25 miles...

 

jamie

Edited December 3, 2005 by NFA

[+sept1c_tank]

Considering the entire surface of the earth (including polar regions and water), what would be the maximum # of caches that could legally be placed, given the 528 ft. rule?

 

I think it would be between 5 and 6 billion, not allowing for the placement of hydrocaches...

 

Speaking for myself, I would like to see the cache density guideline changed to one every 0.25 miles...

 

jamie

Well, that would reduce the potential down to only about 3.5 billion; maybe that's a more realistic approach.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Second straw man: No one (not even the originator of the thread) has suggested unrestricted listings down to 100 feet.

 

I thought I read this a little earlier:

 

I would like to see one hard and fast rule: caches must be at least 100 feet apart.

 

Darn those pesky straw men!

[CoyoteRed]

A distance guideline is the single MOST important tool to meaningfully limit cache density that can be put into place.

No, not really.

 

Read my post on the previous page for another way to limit over saturation.

 

It would be easy to implement.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

If anyone really wanted limit saturation effectively, it should be a limit in the number of caches in an area.

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.

 

All of these things could be implemented IN ADDITION to the .1 guideline to further prevent oversaturation, but still see no compelling reasons in your post to do away with the distance guideline as it is currently structured.

I'll say this again:

The only reason to loosen the distance guideline would be to allow MORE caches in a smaller area.

We can ADD plenty of additional restrictions to prevent oversaturation even more thoroughly, but to REMOVE the .1 guideline simply means one thing- more caches in smaller areas. What other reason would there be to removing the guideline other han to put a cache CLOSER to another cache than what is currently allowed?

 

If we REALLY are worried about density, we'd add CR's recommendations WITH the .1 guideline. That would prevent the problem.

 

(personally, I'm not for more rules, but this is for the sake of argument. 528' solves the problem for me.)

[+Flatiron & Mrs. Wrangler]

I don't see any problem with the guidelines being as they are now. As somebody previously mentioned, you could always make it a multi-cache. In places such as Southern Ca. where there's way too many caches placed anyway, can you imagine the cache saturation? These guidelines were set for a reason, and I think the GC community can live with them, so move on..........

[+Lil Devil]

These guidelines were set for a reason, and I think the GC community can live with them, so move on..........

To put that another way, the sport can't live without them

[Kirbert]

FloridaCacher wrote:

I offered to work with Kirbert in a Spirit of trying to get the caches approved within reason and the guidelines.

 

True. He offered to list them if I would move them! The entire POINT of one cache in question was to bring cachers to one particular headstone in a cemetery because it was interesting. To this, FloridaCacher told me he'd be happy to list it if I would only move it a couple of hundred feet away.

 

The point of the series of geocaches in the Chain of Parks was to have one in each park, but since each park is one block long, some MUST be closer to each other than 528' -- and again, I'm told that they can get listed if only I'll move them. The only possible way to get them all 528' apart would be to have some of them OUTSIDE the parks in question.

 

His response to me when it couldn't be done the way He wanted it done was to just pull all of his caches and be done with it.

 

Despite FloridaCacher's attempt to make me sound bitter, let's face it: when the plan is to bring cachers to a particular headstone and the only way to get it listed is to move it a coupla hundred feet AWAY from that headstone, the responsible thing to do is to pull it and be done with it. Or maybe hide a letterbox there instead. In hindsight, making a multi out of it to send cachers somewhere else first and THEN bring them to the headstone might have worked to get the cache listed, but I don't see the point. It's just saturating the area MORE, requiring two finds where one should serve.

 

I just want to make one last point I am willing to work with any cacher who is willing to work with me

 

True. "You drive BACK out there and REMOVE the cache from the hiding place you worked so hard on and rehide it in ANOTHER place and then come back home and resubmit the entire listing with the new coords, and I will approve your listing."

 

...to find the best possible solutions to placing a cache/s within the guidelines we have to work with.

 

To be fair to FloridaCacher, it's the guidelines I object to, not so much his adherence to them. I'd just as soon he drop the pretense of "working with" since he clearly won't violate a guideline. Telling cachers it can't be approved, you've gotta go out and move it, is not "working with", it's enforcement. Could be done by the server, no reviewer needed.

 

I cannot speak to anyone's actions other than my own but I find it very disheartening for Kirbert to come into to this forum and act as though he was not given ample oppurtunity to bring these caches or ther caches he has been questioned about into compliance with the guidelines.

 

I was given ample opportunity to go move my cache. If FloridaCacher finds it disheartening that I didn't consider that an acceptable option, well, perhaps that illustrates the problem.

 

The attitude of if I can do it my way then I will take my toys and go home have no place here in my opinion.

 

Dunno what else I was supposed to do with that cache. It was clear that it was not going to get listed, period. It came down to pulling the cache or be guilty of littering.