The 0.1 Mile Rule

[+HAB214]

How does everyone feel about the rule that caches must be 0.1 miles apart? I understand why it was placed, but I believe it just causes many missed opportunities.

[Trinity's Crew]

I'm okay with it.

[+BlueDeuce]

I like it just fine.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Works for me.

 

Technically, it's a guideline, not a rule. I've seen a number of situations in which caches were placed closer to each other than a tenth of a mile.

[Mushtang]

...but I believe it just causes many missed opportunities.

 

Correct. We miss the opportunities to accidentally find a different cache than the one we're trying to find.

[+C&C+COMPANY]

I like it alot

[+Quiggle]

Looks good to me.

 

[+The Leprechauns]

Missed opportunities? Heck yes.

 

A micro at one end of the Wal-Mart parking lot blocks a second micro in the middle of the Wal-Mart parking lot, forcing hider #2 to place their cache *behind* the Wal-Mart. This deprives me of the opportunity to visit the special spot in the middle of the Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

A tupperware 500 feet down the trail from the trailhead blocks a second tupperware right near the trailhead. I would actually have to walk down the trail before finding my first cache, thereby depriving me of instant gratification. THEN I would have to walk another 600 feet or so down the nice trail before I could find a second cache.

 

A cache saturation guideline also makes us miss out on opportunities to hack off land managers and get geocaching banned or regulated in more places. In my dealings with land managers, several have said "I don't want these scattered all over the park, but a few are OK." Most are satisfied once the listing guidelines on cache saturation are explained to them. Three, however, felt that caches being .1 miles apart was way too liberal. So, in those park systems, there is a flat rule of one or two caches per park.

[H to the Bizzle!]

I think its a good enough distance.

[+Mopar]

How does everyone feel about the rule that caches must be 0.1 miles apart? I understand why it was placed, but I believe it just causes many missed opportunities.

I agree! I always hated that 0.1 mile too. It's about time to fix that. Just transpose the zero and the one, and I bet lots of people besides you and I would be much happier.

[+wandererrob]

At the risk of sounding unoriginal... I'm fine with it.

 

Depending on the cache placement opportunity, exceptions have been known to be made. I think usually in cases where there's some sort of clear division between cache locations (major road, separate parks, big scary monsters, that sort of thing) but I imagine such exceptions are made sparingly and with a good case made by the hider to the reviewer.

 

I'm pondering such a situation myself and may have to make my case should I decide to proceed. Something I feel worth seeing, separated from a nearby cache (probably at or near the 528' mark) by a major local road. But we'll see if I deem it worth pursuing.

[+majicman]

It's silly.

 

Actually, not to wax Messianic, I'd much prefer to be didactic than facetious in explaining this, but, there you are.

 

You see, its a question of scale. If I put a big honkin' ammo can cache, then 1 city block radii for all other caches is apt or par. BUT, what if my cache is a mini? I think then that the 528 foot rule is a bit obtuse, and should be reduced porportionally to the size of my cache, say to 314.7 ft.

 

Now, if I hide a micro cache, all bets are off. This miniscule and insignificant container migh be the size of a small matchbox, or even, lets say... a piece of rolled up cheese on a hot day. This much smaller cache container, by its very nature, should invite a greatly reduced perimiter of defense against other caches encroachment; I would guess on the order of at least a magnitude: lets choose 29 ft, 6 and 7/8 inches... run that up the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes it!

 

OK, so here's the formula, I believe we should all adhere to to ensure maximum cacheability:

 

{[ Voulme of cache (in cubic inches)] / 5,280} x pi (in decimeters)

 

This then should give you the correct "destructo-radius" in which all other nearby caches should be sent to blazes in a fiery heap.

 

That should settle that question!

 

[+Prime Suspect]

It works for me. Sure, every once in a while, there's some lame micro 400' from a really great hiding place that could conceal an ammo box. But that's the exception, rather than the, uh, rule.

[+Renegade Knight]

For rural caches it's fine. For urban caches I don't think it really serves much purpose. Smaller separation is fine in some instances. More instances than are presently allowed.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GPSaxophone]

How does everyone feel about the rule that caches must be 0.1 miles apart? I understand why it was placed, but I believe it just causes many missed opportunities.

First off, it's a guideline, not a rule. It is the minimum distance between caches unless good reason can be given to the reviewer as to why another cache should be placed closer.

 

A cache at the top of a cliff could be mere feet (coordinates-wise) from a cache at the bottom, but how far must you travel from one to the other? In this case, an exception may be granted.

 

A hider wants to place a cache in a lightpost skirt just 100 feet from another lightpost skirt. Even if they are across a busy street from each other, there is no need to make an exception to the guideline. In fact, the first cache should be archived since it is lame. The second hider should be castrated castigated for even attempting such a lame hide so close to an existing one.

[+TotemLake]

How does everyone feel about the rule that caches must be 0.1 miles apart? I understand why it was placed, but I believe it just causes many missed opportunities.

 

[+Team Perks]

I will wholeheartedly endorse Majicman's recommendation...as soon as I can figure out what it is.

 

I'm with the group. 528 feet is normally fine. If there is something that seriously worth seeing within .1 mile of another cache, odds are I'd trek the extra 400 feet and see it regardless of whether there was a second cache there.

[CoyoteRed]

I've said it many times, I don't care for it.

 

Think about the reason the guideline is in place.

 

Is it cache saturation? Hardly. I've not found any place where cache saturation has even approached critical mass.

 

Is it to prevent so called power trails? Nope. Those are still restricted even if they meet the letter of the 528' guideline.

 

That leaves poached hides and accidental finds. Is there anything else?

 

As for poached hides, I find it hard to believe you need five hundred and twenty eight feet of seperation to prevent horning in on someone else's hide.

 

Accidental finds, and the resultant logging the wrong cache, could have been better handled with a better guideline--and the hobby would have been better off for it. Make sure you mark your caches appropriately! You were looking for "CR's Lame Cache?" Well, if it didn't say "CR's Lame Cache" on the logbook, then maybe you found the wrong one.

 

The hobby's benefit of this strong encouragement to properly mark your cache is maybe, just maybe, fewer of them would been blown up. No, it won't deter an overzealous bomb squad, but I'm sure some of the negative news stories about geocaching could have turned out differently if the caches had been clearly marked.

 

The 528' guideline was put in place because it was easiler than making sure we did our job properly.

[+BlueDeuce]

The 528' guideline was put in place because it was easiler than making sure we did our job properly.

 

Well, yeah I agree. Could you imagine the effort (and the flack the reviewers would get for saying people didn't do their jobs properly) on reviewing closely placed caches? I prefer the "here's why it could be an exception" method. A little bit more detail gets submitted.

 

 

edited to focus on the effort not the flack.

Edited March 4, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+HAB214]

Now I should have been more clear I guess...I'm referring more to urban caches. However, I do understand what you all have said about placing too many caches....you don't want to "clutter" an area either.

[+enjoys]

As long as it ids a guideline is it ok with me. If you have a good reason for a cache, you will probably be allowed to post it. It went fine for me when i did that.

 

[+mdpaul]

it works for me

[+fourenty]

It's silly.

 

Actually, not to wax Messianic, I'd much prefer to be didactic than facetious in explaining this, but, there you are.

 

You see, its a question of scale. If I put a big honkin' ammo can cache, then 1 city block radii for all other caches is apt or par. BUT, what if my cache is a mini? I think then that the 528 foot rule is a bit obtuse, and should be reduced porportionally to the size of my cache, say to 314.7 ft.

 

Now, if I hide a micro cache, all bets are off. This miniscule and insignificant container migh be the size of a small matchbox, or even, lets say... a piece of rolled up cheese on a hot day. This much smaller cache container, by its very nature, should invite a greatly reduced perimiter of defense against other caches encroachment; I would guess on the order of at least a magnitude: lets choose 29 ft, 6 and 7/8 inches... run that up the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes it!

 

OK, so here's the formula, I believe we should all adhere to to ensure maximum cacheability:

 

{[ Voulme of cache (in cubic inches)] / 5,280} x pi (in decimeters)

 

This then should give you the correct "destructo-radius" in which all other nearby caches should be sent to blazes in a fiery heap.

 

That should settle that question!

 

 

Huh?

[+Glenn]

If I want to places two caches that close I just list one on that other site.

[4wheelin_fool]

I dont understand the "missed opportunities" part. A multi can have each stage less than 528' from each of the other stages. The 528' rule is only for individual caches. Plus, if there is a major obstacle in between each cache ( top vs. bottom of a mountain, or a river)they will waive the rule. At 3mph I can walk a mile in 20 minutes. A tenth should take not more than 3 minutes. Is it really necessary to have that many smilies that close to each other?

[+StarBrand]

I think it is a bit small - I could live with .25 instead.

[+Foothills Drifter]

Howdy......

It don't matter to me.......I will go by the guide lines.

 

Vern...

[+Moose Mob]

Missed opportunities? Heck yes.

 

A micro at one end of the Wal-Mart parking lot blocks a second micro in the middle of the Wal-Mart parking lot, forcing hider #2 to place their cache *behind* the Wal-Mart. This deprives me of the opportunity to visit the special spot in the middle of the Wal-Mart parking lot.

 

A tupperware 500 feet down the trail from the trailhead blocks a second tupperware right near the trailhead. I would actually have to walk down the trail before finding my first cache, thereby depriving me of instant gratification. THEN I would have to walk another 600 feet or so down the nice trail before I could find a second cache.

 

A cache saturation guideline also makes us miss out on opportunities to hack off land managers and get geocaching banned or regulated in more places. In my dealings with land managers, several have said "I don't want these scattered all over the park, but a few are OK." Most are satisfied once the listing guidelines on cache saturation are explained to them. Three, however, felt that caches being .1 miles apart was way too liberal. So, in those park systems, there is a flat rule of one or two caches per park.

Hey, they asked an honest question. Settle down, will ya?

[+Rich the Bushwhacker]

I'd like to see it upped to a half mile myself.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I've said it many times, I don't care for it.

 

Think about the reason the guideline is in place.

 

Is it cache saturation? Hardly. I've not found any place where cache saturation has even approached critical mass.

 

Is it to prevent so called power trails? Nope. Those are still restricted even if they meet the letter of the 528' guideline.

 

That leaves poached hides and accidental finds. Is there anything else?

 

As for poached hides, I find it hard to believe you need five hundred and twenty eight feet of seperation to prevent horning in on someone else's hide.

 

Accidental finds, and the resultant logging the wrong cache, could have been better handled with a better guideline--and the hobby would have been better off for it. Make sure you mark your caches appropriately! You were looking for "CR's Lame Cache?" Well, if it didn't say "CR's Lame Cache" on the logbook, then maybe you found the wrong one.

 

The hobby's benefit of this strong encouragement to properly mark your cache is maybe, just maybe, fewer of them would been blown up. No, it won't deter an overzealous bomb squad, but I'm sure some of the negative news stories about geocaching could have turned out differently if the caches had been clearly marked.

 

The 528' guideline was put in place because it was easiler than making sure we did our job properly.

The 0.1 miles was just an arbitrary number, but some number had to be picked. If there was no number, then we'd have the same problem we had with virts...caches would need to meet the "Wow!" test to be placed closer together. We all know how that one ended up.

[CoyoteRed]

If there was no number...

 

I'm not saying there be no guideline. I'm saying the guideline settled upon was wrong.

 

Virtuals, at one time, were the lowest form of cache. One didn't have to do anything but find a spot that provided some sort of verification. Even code word caches made you create something to place. As a consequence, we all know what happened.

 

However, with much stricter guidelines placed on virtuals, they because the hardest cache to "place." Not that there was a "cache" per se or even a "placement," but you get my drift.

 

The genesis of virtuals shows there are two extremes.

 

A better guideline would be something somewhere in the middle.

 

Back to the topic at hand. The 528' rule is a simple linear measurement that has yet to this date really prevented over-saturation. It has only prevented caches from being too close to each other. Yes, there is a difference--huge difference.

 

As of yet, I've not heard of any problem the 528' guideline is supposed to address that a different guideline couldn't have addressed better.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If there was no number...

 

I'm not saying there be no guideline. I'm saying the guideline settled upon was wrong.

 

Virtuals, at one time, were the lowest form of cache. One didn't have to do anything but find a spot that provided some sort of verification. Even code word caches made you create something to place. As a consequence, we all know what happened.

 

However, with much stricter guidelines placed on virtuals, they because the hardest cache to "place." Not that there was a "cache" per se or even a "placement," but you get my drift.

 

The genesis of virtuals shows there are two extremes.

 

A better guideline would be something somewhere in the middle.

 

Back to the topic at hand. The 528' rule is a simple linear measurement that has yet to this date really prevented over-saturation. It has only prevented caches from being too close to each other. Yes, there is a difference--huge difference.

 

As of yet, I've not heard of any problem the 528' guideline is supposed to address that a different guideline couldn't have addressed better.

The guideline tells land managers that geocaching.com is concerned with too many caches in one area. The number next to it isn't the main point, but it keeps the guideline form being subjective like the "WOW!" factor.

[+maleki]

Here's a cache example taken to the opposite extreme as it was considered 'flooding'. The stages are all about .5 mile apart or more over an established 11 mile route yet individual caches were not allowed by the admin. It seems to me that more series like these should be encouraged instead of not approved.

 

Magical Mystery Tour

 

The paragraph that follows is the owners description of why it was not allowed as 11 separate caches but is now an 11 ammo box multi that your supposed to log 11 separate times. I'm not a fan of logging an individual cache more than once and this seems to be an overreaction to the 'flooding' concept. There are several other 19 hole geo-golf type series(one approved after this one was not) in the area that are not much different in concept and much shorter end to end. I love these series as you can often park once and make a day of it and log each individually.

 

Just don't see this one as 'flooding'.

 

***********************************************************************************

taken from the end of the cache description

***UPDATE 11/22/05***

Many people, either in the logs, or personally, questioned the reason why this multi was set up this way. I originally submitted this series as eleven mystery caches. It wasn't allowed by IlAdmin reasoning that I was flooding the area.(?)

I did not want to list these individually because I wanted you to do them in order as to take you on a journey through this area. Their are no bonus caches after you complete the eleven stage series. Some don't like to, but you are able to post a log for each cache you find in this series. And why not? You spent a good amount of time hunting them?

**********************************************************************************

[CoyoteRed]

The guideline tells land managers that geocaching.com is concerned with too many caches in one area. The number next to it isn't the main point, but it keeps the guideline form being subjective like the "WOW!" factor.

 

I wonder what would happen if a land manager happened to see the saturation 528' allows. Has anyone? There have been plenty of posts about the number of caches that even 528' will allow and there is no place on this Earth that even approaches this critical mass.

 

(BTW, why do we re-hash these points ... every ... single ... time?)

 

Additionally, a post eariler in this thread indicates that land managers can, and do, place stricter restrictions on placements. But the guideline does nothing for the two small adjacent parks. A cache in one could preclude one in the other. The landowner might want a cache on his property, but where he wants it could be well under the 528' guideline.

 

Presenting the 528' guideline as a show of concern is really disingenuous, quite frankly.

 

Oh, and there are plenty of other solutions, objective solutions, than the subjective "WOW!" factor. Don't know why you keep bringing that up.

[+Wadcutter]

528 ft is plenty close. Just how close together can we have film canisters anyway?

[+Robespierre]

(HAB214 @ Mar 3 2006, 03:37 PM) *

 

How does everyone feel about the rule that caches must be 0.1 miles apart? I understand why it was placed, but I believe it just causes many missed opportunities.

 

I agree! I always hated that 0.1 mile too. It's about time to fix that. Just transpose the zero and the one, and I bet lots of people besides you and I would be much happier.

 

Obviously SOME rule is needed, else cachers would be quite stupid about it at some times and places. I personally have no need for a micro every 600'. I try to keep all of mine at the .25 miles suggested above when possible (and few micros), though in one park I have 3 decent caches which (straight across the water) barely meet the guideline.

[+Blue Bomb]

The guideline tells land managers that geocaching.com is concerned with too many caches in one area. The number next to it isn't the main point, but it keeps the guideline form being subjective like the "WOW!" factor.

 

I wonder what would happen if a land manager happened to see the saturation 528' allows. Has anyone? There have been plenty of posts about the number of caches that even 528' will allow and there is no place on this Earth that even approaches this critical mass.

 

Even though I'd rather see the number upped a bit, like .25 miles or so, a circle with a radius of 528 feet (the area where placement of other caches would be blocked because of the .1 mile proximity rule) covers between 19 and 20 acres. If a piece of land has an ecosystem too fragile to be able to handle a cache for every 20 acres, there shouldn't be *any* caches allowed on that land.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The guideline tells land managers that geocaching.com is concerned with too many caches in one area. The number next to it isn't the main point, but it keeps the guideline form being subjective like the "WOW!" factor.

 

I wonder what would happen if a land manager happened to see the saturation 528' allows. Has anyone? There have been plenty of posts about the number of caches that even 528' will allow and there is no place on this Earth that even approaches this critical mass.

 

(BTW, why do we re-hash these points ... every ... single ... time?)

 

Additionally, a post eariler in this thread indicates that land managers can, and do, place stricter restrictions on placements. But the guideline does nothing for the two small adjacent parks. A cache in one could preclude one in the other. The landowner might want a cache on his property, but where he wants it could be well under the 528' guideline.

 

Presenting the 528' guideline as a show of concern is really disingenuous, quite frankly.

 

Oh, and there are plenty of other solutions, objective solutions, than the subjective "WOW!" factor. Don't know why you keep bringing that up.

And I have yet to see you post a "better" solution.

 

528' it is then

[+Prime Suspect]

Is it cache saturation? Hardly. I've not found any place where cache saturation has even approached critical mass.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

 

You know, there have hardly been any accidents at the 4-way intersection near my house. So obviously we don't need those stop signs there.

[CoyoteRed]

Wow, let's bring out the strawman.

[CoyoteRed]

And I have yet to see you post a "better" solution.

 

528' it is then

 

You must have missed the last discussion about this issue.

[+Relic Hounds]

I Don't Like the rule I live buy a mountain and there is a cache on top and because of that I cant stick one at the bottom

[Tahosa and Sons]

If rules are supposed to be more rigid than guidelines I really like the rules under the FAQ section.

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

So if its up to me then maybe I should ignore the guideline for the 528 ft and follow the rule.

[+GPSOkie]

I like the rule...except...when someone places a micro in an area that could have supported a reqular cache and it interferes with my placing a regular cache : ) But that's just my opinion !!

[4wheelin_fool]

I Don't Like the rule I live buy a mountain and there is a cache on top and because of that I cant stick one at the bottom

Yes you can. There are exceptions made.

[+Team Neos]

Even though I'd rather see the number upped a bit, like .25 miles or so, a circle with a radius of 528 feet (the area where placement of other caches would be blocked because of the .1 mile proximity rule) covers between 19 and 20 acres. If a piece of land has an ecosystem too fragile to be able to handle a cache for every 20 acres, there shouldn't be *any* caches allowed on that land.

 

How do you come up with 20 acres? I figure it at about 2.24 acres. (1 circular acre = 235.504 feet in diameter).

[+Prime Suspect]

Even though I'd rather see the number upped a bit, like .25 miles or so, a circle with a radius of 528 feet (the area where placement of other caches would be blocked because of the .1 mile proximity rule) covers between 19 and 20 acres. If a piece of land has an ecosystem too fragile to be able to handle a cache for every 20 acres, there shouldn't be *any* caches allowed on that land.

 

How do you come up with 20 acres? I figure it at about 2.24 acres. (1 circular acre = 235.504 feet in diameter).

 

528² × Π = 875,800 sq ft = 20.1 acres.

[+Ichabod]

I Don't Like the rule I live buy a mountain and there is a cache on top and because of that I cant stick one at the bottom

 

That's not a mountain... but since you "own" it... I suppose you can call it whatever you like

[+JaySTE]

How is the 528 rule enforced? Must owners of puzzle cacges disclose the actual coodinates to the approvers?

Also, what about non-premium members? If the coordinates are not avaulable to us, how can we follow the rule?

I like the rule, I don't want to see areas oversaturated, I just am curious.

 

JayST

[+robert]

How is the 528 rule enforced? Must owners of puzzle cacges disclose the actual coodinates to the approvers?

Also, what about non-premium members? If the coordinates are not avaulable to us, how can we follow the rule?

I like the rule, I don't want to see areas oversaturated, I just am curious.

 

When you submit a multi or puzzle you need to give coords for all stages to the reviewer before it's listed so they can check the stages don't interfere with other caches and so that those stages aren't placed in off-limits areas. If you want to hide a cache in a park that has a puzzle or multi you need to find the cache to know for sure. If it's M.O. and you're not, send the coords you'd like to use to your reviewer and have them check for you beforehand.