Cache Saturation Level

[+ktcubed]

I was preparing for a trip recently and did a search for the nearest 300 caches to my third and final stop. I was supprised at the size (lack of) of the result area. The 300th cache was only 11+miles away. That got me thinking. What was the saturation level of the caches in this area. (How many per square mile?) A little math showed it to be about 3/4ths of a cache per square mile. Not very big. I did some further searching and found a spot in Jacksonville with a Sat.Levl. of 4.2 per sq. mi. How big can they get?

 

According to the rules no cache within .1 mile of the next. Therefor 100 per square mile right (10x10). Nope. If you use some good hexagonal packing you can get 115.

 

Now the question. What is the most saturated zipcode (or other region/spot) out there for caches.

 

Do a search around a code, get the distance of the 100th cache. Sat level is then

 

100/(dist^2*pi)

[+will2003]

100/(8.6^2*pi)

 

I really don't know how to figure that up, what is it, my sucky math in windows calculator came out 3.8 lol

[+Team Maccabee]

For area code 98115: 100/(2.71^2*pi) = 4.334

 

And that's not nearly the most saturated area in Seattle, I'm sure.

 

Team Maccabee

[+briansnat]

100/(dist^2*pi)

 

Hey can you translate that to English?

Edited December 23, 2005 by briansnat

[+adambro]

100 divided by (distance squared times pi)

 

where pi = 3.14159....

[CoyoteRed]

Doing a quick search near L.A. came up with this place--100 caches in 2.5 miles. (8500+ in 100 miles.)

 

I'm sure one can tweak this to get it higher, but it appears the highest concentrations are around L.A. With the area having 8500+ cache in a 100 mile radius there's plenty to choose from.

 

I think this clearly illustrates there will be a point where the demand for some sort of rating system will increase to a critical mass. There will be so many caches to choose from it will be hard to find that which you like. (Unless you just do them all, even the junkiest of them all.)

 

EDIT: opps. That's 5.1 caches per sq. mile. Still far short of hitting the .1 mile saturation level.

Edited December 23, 2005 by CoyoteRed

[+Kit Fox]

Doing a quick search near L.A. came up with this  place--100 caches in 2.5 miles.  (8500+ in 100 miles.)

 

I think this clearly illustrates there will be a point where the demand for some sort of rating system will increase to a critical mass.  There will be so many caches to choose from it will be hard to find that which you like. (Unless you just do them all, even the junkiest of them all.)

 

The reason we such a high density of caches, is because cachers are more than willing to "pinch their noses" while looking for the caches. The demand is there, and the competition is high, so more caches equal higher stats, regardless of quality.

 

Ironically the cache you picked as your starting point happens to be a very creative cache container, that wows everyone.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Kit Fox

[+shorbird]

I don't know what the density is around here, but there's plenty of room for more!!

[salmoned]

Just another numbers game - More = Better? Not!

[+wimseyguy]

Doing a quick search near L.A. came up with this  place--100 caches in 2.5 miles.  (8500+ in 100 miles.)

 

I think this clearly illustrates there will be a point where the demand for some sort of rating system will increase to a critical mass.  There will be so many caches to choose from it will be hard to find that which you like. (Unless you just do them all, even the junkiest of them all.)

 

The reason we such a high density of caches, is because cachers are more than willing to "pinch their noses" while looking for the caches. The demand is there, and the competition is high, so more caches equal higher stats, regardless of quality.

 

Ironically the cache you picked as your starting point happens to be a very creative cache container, that wows everyone.

Yup someday it will all come down to pinching your nose or looking down it.

 

Or maybe you can just go out and have fun?

[CoyoteRed]

Or maybe you can just go out and have fun?

Oh, yeah. I've sampled this "fun."

[ProfessorFlight]

Around our parts we have about 15 in 20 miles. We still have lots of fantastic places for caches,

[+Team Maccabee]

The reason we such a high density of caches, is because cachers are more than willing to "pinch their noses" while looking for the caches. The demand is there, and the competition is high, so more caches equal higher stats, regardless of quality.

 

Here's an idea for high cache density areas.... have a cache expiration date, maybe 2-3 years after being placed. That way, cache hiding area opens up eventually. Maybe there could also be a process to 'pardon' high-quality caches, if we could all get together and figure out a mutually-acceptable process.

 

Disclaimer: It's just an idea. Please don't bite the head off of the messenger. Of course, the author of this idea will not take it personally if the idea is criticized.

[+Team Neos]

Here's an idea for high cache density areas.... have a cache expiration date, maybe 2-3 years after being placed. That way, cache hiding area opens up eventually. Maybe there could also be a process to 'pardon' high-quality caches, if we could all get together and figure out a mutually-acceptable process.

 

The idea has been suggested before, but probably isn't really needed enough to warrent the complications it would cause. Cache turnover happens naturally in my area...and likely in most areas (although perhaps not fast enough to suit some folks). Cache owners do get weary of having few visitors, or of repeatedly having to go out to maintain the same old caches. They also get tired of owning all the caches in an area, and not being able to find any without traveling long distances. So eventually they decide not to replace a cache and the spot opens up. Then eager new cachers put out hides that the folks who have been around can find, and everyone is pleased.

[+Kit Fox]

Yup someday it will all come down to pinching your nose or looking down it.

 

Or maybe you can just go out and have fun?

I always have fun when I geocache.

 

My trick is to avoid areas where I don't like to find caches (high visibility, city caches, caches placed on business property without permission.) The easiest method (for me) to is find caches that have a terrain rating of atleast 2.5 to 4.5. This means no 1/1 parking lot micros.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Kit Fox

[+wimseyguy]

Yup someday it will all come down to pinching your nose or looking down it.

 

Or maybe you can just go out and have fun?

I always have fun when I geocache.

 

My trick is to avoid areas where I don't like to find caches (high visibility, city caches, caches placed on business property without permission.) The easiest method (for me) to is find caches that have a terrain rating of atleast 2.5 to 4.5. This means no 1/1 parking lot micros.

dingdingding we have a winner!!!

This is exactly my point!!!

So ahh how is the rating system doing elsewhere?

 

And just to keep this post OT-this (Raleigh NC/RDU Triangle) is a pretty cache dense area with 600+ within 20 miles. Don't have time for calculations this AM. Gotta go out and find some more while I'm ah, er, um running erands.

I would hate to see older caches expire just because of some arbitrary date. Newer cachers should enjoy being able to find them just like we did three years ago, and I enjoy seeking them out when I travel. Natural expiration is much better IMO.

Edited December 24, 2005 by wimseyguy