The 5¢ Theory

[+5¢]

So here is my theory. This may not apply to all caching areas.........I can only speak from what I have seen in mine.

 

I am noticing as time goes on here in my short year and a half career that there are no really no cool places left in my area to hide caches. The other thing I have noticed is that there are not many travel bugs coming into my area.

 

All the newer caches are micros or too small a cache to hide a travel bug in. I think I am seeing a connection between some things around here. All the cool places to hide caches are taken, (in general, I don't want to start this arguement about how there is a small spot in this one park that could hold a cache if placed in the very northwest corner of said park) and most people in the area have found the caches.

 

The only people finding these caches are new cachers. Well, with these new cachers finding old caches, travel bugs are not in these old caches and there seems to be a stalling out of travel bugs in my local caches. The other thing is that since most of the cache hideable areas are taken, the new cachers have few choices in hiding caches. They can put out what some call bad caches or the hated, unthoughtful micro, or they have the other choice...............hide nothing.

 

Now the other side of the coin is that all the cachers who have been caching for a long time and even those middle cachers like myselfe must travel many many miles to find a cache. Except for about 10 caches, I have to drive about 40 plus miles to find a cache.

 

This all just seems like a vicious cycle to me in the long run. Eventually, most cachers in an area will have to drive 100 miles to find a cache. Travel bugs begin to get stranded in caches that most everyone in an area has found and not many TB's come into the area. New cachers have no where to hide caches and if they want to hide a cache can just about only hide those lame caches no one seems to like except the number hounds.

 

I will end this post with the fact that I am a terrible writer and will probably have to expound on some of the things I have written since most time I am not able to convey my complete thoughts when I post to threads. I appologize for that in advance.

 

What's your all thoughts?

Edited November 15, 2005 by 5¢

[+Yamahammer]

Much like yours. I've started hiding some around. Some are micro's. Some are not. I have to drive 40-100 miles to get any kind of numbers anymore. There are plenty of cool sites for caches within 20 miles of here but we don't have many cachers. I could start planting caches then someone would be on here complaining I was taking all the cool sites. No win.

 

I think it does slow down some of the TB's that get stranded around here. I dont' want to start raiding caches for Tb's but if I'm heading to another town/area, I might do it just to get them moving again.

 

[+welch]

All the newer caches are micros or too small a cache to hide a travel bug in. I think I am seeing a connection between some things around here. All the cool places to hide caches are taken, (in general, I don't want to start this arguement about how there is a small spot in this one park that could hold a cache if placed in the very northwest corner of said park) and most people in the area have found the caches.

I think thats what makes them 'in' the area, having found several of the caches there

 

I'm not quite sure how this directly 'stalls' TBs though, since people can revisit any cache they want to pick up / release TBs. Or are you saying people only moving TBs when its compatiable with getting another smilie??

[+Miragee]

I picked up a TB yesterday when I visited one of my caches on the way to placing two more new ones.

 

Seemed it had been languishing too long in another one of my rural, but near a metropolitan area, caches that gets few visits.

 

Ironic that some people around here have actually complained about the proliferation of new caches . . .

[+5¢]

All the newer caches are micros or too small a cache to hide a travel bug in.  I think I am seeing a connection between some things around here.  All the cool places to hide caches are taken, (in general, I don't want to start this arguement about how there is a small spot in this one park that could hold a cache if placed in the very northwest corner of said park) and most people in the area have found the caches.

I think thats what makes them 'in' the area, having found several of the caches there

 

I'm not quite sure how this directly 'stalls' TBs though, since people can revisit any cache they want to pick up / release TBs. Or are you saying people only moving TBs when its compatiable with getting another smilie??

I am saying this in general from what I have seen and been told by quite a few people.........Once again, this is from my area, not geocachers in a whole. I have noticed not a lot of people around here go back to caches to take travel bugs. Me personally, I have. I know until I really got into travel bugs, I didn't pay attention to caches I had already found. I have been told by my cache approver when I brought up a subject about moving one of my caches to another area not far away from its original location to try to give some folks a new hide that he would approve it, but he personally doesn't go back to areas he has already visited. I guess in that sense, you are darned if you do and darned if you don't, but I thought it was a valid point and I am sure some cachers feel that way.......Well I am sure, I have seen it in the forums. And yes Welch, you know just as well as I do, there are some who won't find a cold without a smilie.

[+welch]

All the newer caches are micros or too small a cache to hide a travel bug in.  I think I am seeing a connection between some things around here.  All the cool places to hide caches are taken, (in general, I don't want to start this arguement about how there is a small spot in this one park that could hold a cache if placed in the very northwest corner of said park) and most people in the area have found the caches.

I think thats what makes them 'in' the area, having found several of the caches there

 

I'm not quite sure how this directly 'stalls' TBs though, since people can revisit any cache they want to pick up / release TBs. Or are you saying people only moving TBs when its compatiable with getting another smilie??

I am saying this in general from what I have seen and been told by quite a few people.........Once again, this is from my area, not geocachers in a whole. I have noticed not a lot of people around here go back to caches to take travel bugs. Me personally, I have. I know until I really got into travel bugs, I didn't pay attention to caches I had already found. I have been told by my cache approver when I brought up a subject about moving one of my caches to another area not far away from its original location to try to give some folks a new hide that he would approve it, but he personally doesn't go back to areas he has already visited. I guess in that sense, you are darned if you do and darned if you don't, but I thought it was a valid point and I am sure some cachers feel that way.......Well I am sure, I have seen it in the forums. And yes Welch, you know just as well as I do, there are some who won't find a cold without a smilie.

so in general (this thread, and this theory) you have this theory about your area, based on your area, and you want to know if I think it holds water?? And you want my thoughts about your theory in your area? or your theory as applied to 'my' area? or what???

 

sure I know theres people that don't do anything unless they get a smiley, but thats because?? they only want smilies from caching or something I don't really know.

But again I'm not quite sure how cache age directly 'stalls' TBs though, since people can revisit any cache they want to pick up / release TBs. Unless your part of your theory is that most people are only out for smilies?

 

[+Ambrosia]

When I started caching over 3 1/2 years ago, there were 6 caches in a 30 mile radius. Now there are about 400 in the same area, not including quite a few that have been archived over the years. Most of those are concentrated in maybe a 10 mile radius.

 

At first, I thought that there were not many more places to hide caches. Then I realized that there are so many places that I had never thought of. It becomes such a pleasant suprise to see what people come up with. I just went to a cache tonight that was in an area that I thought "why did I never know about this and put a cache here before?". Perfectly wonderful place that has had 4 caches hidden in it recently. And I've been near there for several other caches over the years.

 

We've had a spate of new people lately, and they still manage to happily place very nice and interesting caches all the time.

 

After I got over my first fear of cache saturation, I've settled back and am enjoying the ride!

[+briansnat]

I think I am seeing a connection between some things around here. All the cool places to hide caches are taken, (in general, I don't want to start this arguement about how there is a small spot in this one park that could hold a cache if placed in the very northwest corner of said park)

[+5¢]

Unless your part of your theory is that most people are only out for smilies?

 

I can only generalize that I believe that is true.

 

Would it also help if I explained I live in a rural area so for the entire county, there is one forest preserve and 9 city parks in that county. The rest, mostly cornfields.

Edited November 15, 2005 by 5¢

[+sept1c_tank]

I don't buy it (your theory); this recent topic, which I started, illustrates clearly, I think, that cache saturation is not a widespread problem.

 

In my immediate area, the turnover of caches has allowed for plenty of room for new cachers to hide. As far as the travel bug part, I see plenty of bugs moving through here all the time. Both experienced and new cachers grab them from new and previously found caches.

[+welch]

Unless your part of your theory is that most people are only out for smilies?

 

I can only generalize that I believe that is true.

 

Would it also help if I explained I live in a rural area so for the entire county, there is one forest preserve and 9 city parks in that county. The rest, mostly cornfields.

Only if I can figure out the relationship between stalled TBs and the fields

(it still seems like the 'problem' is how cachers cache)

 

How big is a county?

Edited November 16, 2005 by welch

[+Moose Mob]

I think your theory has some merit. My observations have been a little different though.

 

First you need to realize that not everyone knows all the cools spots. There are cool spots that everyone knowes about. They tend to have neon signs.

 

Then there are the spots that all the folks in a certain group know about. All the hikers know about the waterfalls on the trail up north. Dog owners knw about the new off-leash dog park, that kind of thing.

 

Next is the less familiar. The small oasis down 30 milkes of dirt road. The mural hidden on the back wall of the old railraod station.

 

So, as some folks are looking for new places for micros, others are creating new creative containers, others are searching the back country for interesting places.

[+Bjorn74]

Rural areas also offer the chance for someone to hide a cache on their own property without attracting suspicion. There are a lot of things that need to be considered like hunting and properly posted "No Trespassing" signs. But imagine what you could do in 2 acres of woods with your own rules.

[+The Leprechauns]

This is an *excellent* topic and I would like to thank 5 Cents for starting it.

 

Where I live, we have by no means achieved saturation yet, except in some popular city and county parks. Once you get outside of Pittsburgh, there are still uncached parks, and huge parks that only have one or two caches in them.

 

But I have given the issue some thought, and I've observed saturation in other areas I've traveled to. My suggestion is that the "pathfinder" cache hiders -- those Johnny Appleseeds who placed a few dozen caches in 2001 and 2002 -- consider whether to archive some of their old hides in order to free up the area for new hides. If you have a multicache that sprawls all over a park, but all the locals have found it and it only gets hit once every two months by a newbie, then archiving it could free up that park to a half dozen hides by different people using different hiding styles. New caches for everyone to find!

 

In Pennsylvania, CCCooperAgency led by example, archiving dozens upon dozens of early caches. And if you ask her about one of her remaining caches, she will likely archive it to make room for a new one.

 

Excepted from the above discussion are the "legendary" caches in an area, which should be preserved at all costs: the first cache in the State, the difficulty 5 puzzle cache, the epic 10 mile hike that people from all over the state come to visit, etc. But not every cache is my best work. I'd gladly recycle a few of them. I have one in mind already -- a micro that's only been found twice since July. I'll try to figure out a way to hide a small or regular cache in the same park.

[bogleman]

I live in a fairly cache rich area and have lived in the same area for most of my life. What I feel is a beautiful area may not be a beautiful area to someone else so to all you cache purists out there BAH. I am in for hiding and seeking caches for fun; I do not consider any cache lame, some may piss me off but I made the decision to go after it. If I am having fun I am having fun – it’s all about me baby. I have hidden a few micros and some regular caches. I have found that because of the density in my area some of my caches are not found that often because they are hiking caches (about 2 miles RT for them). Most folks seem to enjoy the quick and easy grabs. But once the locals have played them out its time for them to go. Its not a number thing its a FUN thing. Are you having fun? I know I am.

[+AuntieWeasel]

I've been very pleased with the way things are going in my area in the past couple of years. It's a cache-rich territory, but with plenty of room left. There are some great parks that have one cache, and could easily support a half dozen without being anything like a power trail. I'm especially pleased to see people hide additional caches in parks like this. Gives me an excuse to go back, if I've been there before, and an excuse to drive a long distance, if it's an unfamiliar park with several to be tried.

 

Bit of attrition, nothing alarming. Far more full sized caches than micros. And TB's are neither rare nor so common that they're boring.

 

It helps that I'm slow and really only chase the ones I think I'll like. If I went just a leeetle bit slower, new hides alone could probably keep me caching within 20 miles

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I am noticing as time goes on here in my short year and a half career that there are no really no cool places left in my area to hide caches

 

Hmmm - I had to wonder about your "theory", as it has come up from time to time in one way or another.

 

According to your profile you live in zip code 62454

A search of that zip code out to a 100 mile radius finds 2326 Traditional caches

Of which you have found 473

But, maybe a lot of those Traditionals are Micro size, so

let's look at it differently

The county you live in encompasses 121 square miles, about what is encompassed in a 20 mile radius if your county were round.

There are 129 Traditionals in a 20 mile radius

There are 70 Traditionals Excluding size Micro in that same 20 mile radius

 

So, 121 square miles, 129 caches, 70 of which are traditional larger than micro, 59 then are micros.

 

Cache density: if distributed evenly, slightly above 1 per square mile. However...

 

A look at this map shows that, as is true most everywhere, the caches in your county are not evenly distributed, but are in fact clustered around towns and strung along certain major roads.

 

In fact, a look at that map shows mile after mile of untouched land; the vast majority of your county, in fact, has no caches!

 

I don't know your area, but I have a hard time believing that none of that unpopulated land in your county holds places of interest where a nice traditional can be hidden and a nice experience provided for finders!

 

Now, while I am directly answering your post, please don't take it as an personal attack - I am trying to answer this issue for all who voice the same complaint, to suggest that you might wanna use some more imagination, and hopefully, to be used as an example the next time someone cries out about cache overpopulation and a lack of places to hide caches!

 

You haven't begun to run out of interesting places to put caches!

Edited November 16, 2005 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+5¢]

I am noticing as time goes on here in my short year and a half career that there are no really no cool places left in my area to hide caches

 

Hmmm - I had to wonder about your "theory", as it has come up from time to time in one way or another.

 

According to your profile you live in zip code 62454

A search of that zip code out to a 100 mile radius finds 2326 Traditional caches

Of which you have found 473

But, maybe a lot of those Traditionals are Micro size, so

let's look at it differently

The county you live in encompasses 121 square miles, about what is encompassed in a 20 mile radius if your county were round.

There are 129 Traditionals in a 20 mile radius

There are 70 Traditionals Excluding size Micro in that same 20 mile radius

 

So, 121 square miles, 129 caches, 70 of which are traditional larger than micro, 59 then are micros.

 

Cache density: if distributed evenly, slightly above 1 per square mile. However...

 

A look at this map shows that, as is true most everywhere, the caches in your county are not evenly distributed, but are in fact clustered around towns and strung along certain major roads.

 

In fact, a look at that map shows mile after mile of untouched land; the vast majority of your county, in fact, has no caches!

 

I don't know your area, but I have a hard time believing that none of that unpopulated land in your county holds places of interest where a nice traditional can be hidden and a nice experience provided for finders!

 

Now, while I am directly answering your post, please don't take it as an personal attack - I am trying to answer this issue for all who voice the same complaint, to suggest that you might wanna use some more imagination, and hopefully, to be used as an example the next time someone cries out about cache overpopulation and a lack of places to hide caches!

 

You haven't begun to run out of interesting places to put caches!

I don't take what you said as a personal attack, but I have some stats here that differ from your and would like to share. Here is a link to the page I got them from...... http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/17/17033.html

 

Crawford county square mileage..... 444

Crawford county acres of farm land....208,922 roughly 326.5(1 sq. mile = 640 acres)

Remaining land not farm associated...118 square miles.

 

The surrounding counties are of close to the same numbers.

 

Approximately 3/4 of the land is farm fields. The caches are placed in little pockets and on major roads because of lack of anything other than farm fields.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Oooops, sorry, the 121 sq mi is from you Zip Code stats, at http://www.city-data.com/zips/62454.html

[+5¢]

Oooops, sorry, the 121 sq mi is from you Zip Code stats, at http://www.city-data.com/zips/62454.html

It's cool. I wouldn't trust that webpage you showed me though in future use. My town has like 6000 people. And some of the surrounding little towns must be getting added into those stats. Around here I have a joke of it's 8 miles to the next town, not 8 miles to the nearest farmfield.

[+5¢]

A little follow up research on the area I was speaking of.

 

63 total caches

26 micros

24 regular

9 small

3 large

1 virtual

70 percent of the 63 caches are hidden by 2 cachers

average cache age 1 year

Most caches get found 10 times in the first month and at the one year mark have about 30 finds

 

Welch I can't tell you how big a county is as some are larger than others. Sorry