Minimum Distance Between Caches.

[+bhodisatva]

What is the absolute minimum distance i can get away with, when placing a cache in proximity to one already there?.

Reason why i ask is i've found a really good spot for a tb-geocoin hotel & cache within a park here in Londonshire but it is within "wind assisted spitting distance" of a micro.

Wondered whether it would be worth my while going ahead and placing it and submitting it for review in the hope leniency is shown due to the finite number of "decent sized" caches in Centralish London or would i just be wasting my time entirely?

[+rutson]

0.1 miles, 528', 161 metres

[+The Forester]

One tenth of a Statute mile.

 

(161metres)

[+bhodisatva]

But do you reckon it's worth trying to submit one that falls just short of the guidelines at .09 or not?. It seems such a shame as it's been noted time and again that there are few and far between decent caches in London. Reckon there's any chance of a reviewer being slightly lenient on this point or would i just be wasting my and their time?.

[+rutson]

At the rish of stating the obvious, have you asked them?

[+bhodisatva]

At the rish of stating the obvious, have you asked them?

Not yet, i thought i'd try utilise the wealth of experience found within the forum first before troubling the reviewers.

[+Learned Gerbil]

Which micro is it? the owner might be able to move it a short distance.

[markandlynn]

Post a SBA on the micro after nicking it

Place your cache and submit it explaining the reasons above.

Contact the owner of the other cache offering to adopt it and move it to the other end of the bench.

Im sure one of the approvers will read this shortly anyway though

[+Learned Gerbil]

BTW, the criteria were not always thus -

 

GC.com thinks GC22E5 and GC2823 are 34 feet apart - they are actually much, much closer! They were also laid the same week!

[+bhodisatva]

I don't think it's fair i mention which micro it is, it may seem as though i'm criticizing the placement of it and that i don't want to do. I will be meeting with the owner of the micro tomorrow, but i've actually done this cache and there is nowhere else to place it within that particular area.

 

Very much seems like i'm going to have to canvass the opinion of the reviewers first, otherwise i could be putting a fair amount of work into both the cache box and hiding place for nothing if it won't pass review.

[+Learned Gerbil]

If you are talking to the other cache owner about it, you are doing the right thing in my view. I doubt anyone thinks you are critisising anybody, and if you place this cache now, everyone will be looking for the nearby micro anyway!

[+bhodisatva]

That's the thing though LG, going to be talking with the cache owner but don't see how it can be moved or placed elsewhere, also don't think it would be fair to ask him to archive it either as "he got there first". Might just have to bite the bullet and contact Lactodorum and Eckington.

[Lactodorum]

Until you ask myself or Eckington we'll never know! Remember, 0.1 mile is a Guideline and given the right circumstances discretion can be applied.

[+Eckington]

DISCRETION Bah humbug but it could be worth a try perhaps maybe if there were really good reasons

[+Haggis Hunter]

Until you ask myself or Eckington we'll never know! Remember, 0.1 mile is a Guideline and given the right circumstances discretion can be applied.

 

DISCRETION Bah humbug but it could be worth a try perhaps maybe if there were really good reasons

I think you have your answer, best you get that private email written and sent off to them!

[Lactodorum]

<snip>......maybe if there were really good reasons

 

What he means is that it depends on the number of pints of ale you buy him!!

[+purple_pineapple]

It sounds like you should try Lacto first!!

 

Seriously though, you can but ask! Our kind reviewers have certainly been known to use their discretion, and it sounds like you have a good case!

 

Having said that, I was planning on TRYING to put a decent size cache in central London myself, so if I were you, I'd forget the idea completely!

 

Dave

[+bhodisatva]

Cheers for the replies peeps, will check the coords one last time tomorrow and then armed with all the information that they will require i can formulate my begging letter to the reviewers.

[+HazelS]

There are a couple of locations VERY close to where I live where there are 3 caches in each location that are CERTAINLY not 0.1 from each other.

 

Everyone always comments on them, and indeed, they both make a good caching trip each, but why one rule for one, and one rule for another??

[+Happy Humphrey]

There are a couple of locations VERY close to where I live where there are 3 caches in each location that are CERTAINLY not 0.1 from each other.

 

Everyone always comments on them, and indeed, they both make a good caching trip each, but why one rule for one, and one rule for another??

They aren't rules, but guidelines!

 

This cache was placed less than 500 feet from another cache - if you went there, you'd realise why an alternative site wasn't possible. It did cause a bit of controversy last month, but this was eventually resolved by the reviewers and cache owner discussing the matter until an amicable solution was reached.

 

The caches are actually a good 10 minutes walk apart: IMO, 0.1 mile is quite a long separation distance in a built-up area, although I can see why it's a realistic guide in the countryside.

 

HH

[+Simply Paul]

I've often wondered if that 528ft figure is just for lateral distance, or if vertical distance could be included. Imagine a cliff with a cache at its top and one at its foot, 500ft lower down (big cliff!) - Horizontally the caches might be only 173ft apart, but when you include height, they're 529ft apart. Given you'd have a long walk from one to the other, and the challenges of getting to them would be different, and the views and environments would be different, I'd imagine they'd be approved. But would the reviewer be right in doing this? (All theoretical btw. I have no cliffs near me to set caches over, and nor am I aware of any caches like this)

[alistair_uk]

<snip>......maybe if there were really good reasons

 

What he means is that it depends on the number of pints of ale you buy him!!

 

1) I see Eckington and I have a similar moral viewpoint on such things

 

2) I also think I owe him a pint for one of my caches

[+naffita]

GCJA3V and GCH5E3 are only 300 feet apart, but a fairish walk from one to t'other. It depends on the situation.

[+Pieman]

I've often wondered if that 528ft figure is just for lateral distance, or if vertical distance could be included. Imagine a cliff with a cache at its top and one at its foot, 500ft lower down (big cliff!) - Horizontally the caches might be only 173ft apart, but when you include height, they're 529ft apart. Given you'd have a long walk from one to the other, and the challenges of getting to them would be different, and the views and environments would be different, I'd imagine they'd be approved. But would the reviewer be right in doing this? (All theoretical btw. I have no cliffs near me to set caches over, and nor am I aware of any caches like this)

There are 3 caches on Ulm Munster all with the same coordinates but at different heights. Fortunately the cache setter gives a clue as to the level of each, otherwise this would be a very tiring hunt as it's a very tall building! Incidently, since I visted I notice that another cache has appeared nearby at <0.1 miles.

[Lactodorum]

There are a couple of locations VERY close to where I live where there are 3 caches in each location that are CERTAINLY not 0.1 from each other.

 

Everyone always comments on them, and indeed, they both make a good caching trip each, but why one rule for one, and one rule for another??

 

 

When reviewing caches here in the UK we try our best to interpret the guidelines in a responsible way.

 

Sometimes we might get it wrong but hopefully most of the time the geocaching community benefits. Sometimes an individual geocacher might feel hard done by but be assured we do our best to make the "right" decisions. Sure, we could consider the guidelines as unbending rules, see the world in pure black and white and become publishing "Robots". However I hope that our approach improves the geocaching scene here.

 

I guess one consequence of our approach is that occasionally aparent inconsistencies will arise, that's the price you pay.

[Team 'James W']

There are a couple of locations VERY close to where I live where there are 3 caches in each location that are CERTAINLY not 0.1 from each other.

 

Wow, never noticed that until I looked just now!

 

[+Pharisee]

I know somewhere (not a million miles from Chicksands ) where there are 6 seperate caches with exactly the same quoted co-ordinates.

 

Whoops.... could that be classed as 'cache advertising' ?

[+HazelS]

There are a couple of locations VERY close to where I live where there are 3 caches in each location that are CERTAINLY not 0.1 from each other.

 

Wow, never noticed that until I looked just now!

 

 

Yep... Thurstaston Common and Helsby Hill both have 3 caches on that are probably less than 300 ft away from each other!! However... all those caches are totally different and show a different part of each location...

Edited May 9, 2006 by HazelS

[+currykev]

Currykev sees no problem replacing his..(oops I mean someone's) micro for a regular. Edited May 9, 2006 by currykev