Saturation

[+SG-MIN]

It is hard to believe that geocaching has only been around for 5 years or so. Just think how quickly it has grown, especially as of late. As our hobby grows and placements increase, I can't help but wonder what it will look like to try and hide a cache in 10 years. It seems that we will reach a saturation threshold where the deciding factor for cache placement will not be cool/interesting hiding places, but rather available locations.

 

Here in my small town virtually every park already has at least 1 cache in it. I am having a hard time placing a really interesting multi-cache because I can't find the location for it. It seems the exponential growth of this activity will only serve to complicate the matter.

 

What are your thoughts? I only see a few options:

1. decrease the 0.1 mile rule
   
2. raise standards for cache placement
   
3. do nothing and let placements degrade.
   

Edited November 6, 2006 by SG-MIN

[+sbell111]

My vote is 'do nothing', but I don't buy the hypothesis that placements will necessarily degrade because of it. Instead, we will simply see fewer new caches placed.

 

As caches are archived, new ones will take their place. More caches will also be placed on privately-owned land.

[+ThePropers]

I think we'll actually see the saturation expand beyond urban micros. I sortof already see it happening around here....just yesterday I went to on a 1.6 mile trail where last year there was 1 cache (at the big rock formation/overlook on that section of the trail) and now there are 4 caches on the same trail....the other three just along the trail and nowhere that interesting, but along the trail nonetheless. A year ago it was more typical to go on a hike and get one cache. Now I can go on the same trail and grab several.

 

Still nice to get out in the woods, but more and more I find myself revisiting the same trails and places to get the new caches, rather than seeing new things. Maybe I need to expand my radius...

Edited November 6, 2006 by ThePropers

[the federation]

The OP works fro the assumption that all cache placemnts are permanent therefore we need to relax the min distance guideline. I disagree what we need to do as cache hiders is continually evaluate our hides and as they get older we should archive and allow for new placemtns in the area.

 

Will a conituned saturation decrease the quality of caches I don't think so we will just have to find better ways to maintain those caches we have placed.

[+Cache Heads]

I pretty much agree with Sbel111. Decreasing the saturation rule would be a terrible idea, IMHO, and a good way to earn ourselves a reputation as litterbugs and environmental destroyers (I'm one of those who unpopularly believe the limit should be raised, as it is). Raising standards for cache placement doesn't work because it's too subjective to be properly enforced by unpaid volunteer reviewers. The only thing I can see helping the situation is stricter enforcement of the permission rule. Once people know that their cache won't get approved unless they have truly obtained proper permission, you'll start to see a lot less crappy hides that were placed simply because there wasn't a cache there already. My guess is that there would be half the amount of hides that exist today (or even less) if permission was truly required by reviewers.

 

Other than that, I say leave things the way they are and let nature take its course....

Edited November 6, 2006 by Cache Heads

[+Renegade Knight]

One thing I've found that I enjoy is the churn. When a cache is archived another cacher will come along and hide a cache in the same area. I get a complete kick out of seeing what the new person does. Especially if they never found the original cache.

 

Sometimes it's in the same spot and sometimes it's in a new spot and is pretty much a different kind of hide. Either way I like to see how cachers tackle the same challenge with their respective caches.

[+SG-MIN]

I am not for decreasing the cache radius, it just seems like we are fast approach the place where saturation may be an issue.

[+TrailGators]

What are your thoughts? I only see a few options:

1. decrease the 0.1 mile rule
   
2. raise standards for cache placement
   
3. do nothing and let placements degrade.
   

He are my two cents:

1) I would be against lowering the cache separation distance. I think doing that would contribute to even more pointless caches being placed.

2) I like the idea of raising the standards. That way a micro next to smelly garbage dumpster behind Wal-Mart wouldn't waste a precious 1056' diameter circle of space.

3) I believe that nothing will be done, but I gave my two cents because I am trying to be an optimist!

Edited November 6, 2006 by TrailGators

[+baloo&bd]

It is hard to believe that geocaching has only been around for 5 years or so. Just think how quickly it has grown, especially as of late. As our hobby grows and placements increase, I can't help but wonder what it will look like to try and hide a cache in 10 years. It seems that we will reach a saturation threshold where the deciding factor for cache placement will not be cool/interesting hiding places, but rather available locations.

 

Here in my small town virtually every park already has at least 1 cache in it. I am having a hard time placing a really interesting multi-cache because I can't find the location for it. It seems the exponential growth of this activity will only serve to complicate the matter.

 

What are your thoughts? I only see a few options:

1. decrease the 0.1 mile rule
   
2. raise standards for cache placement
   
3. do nothing and let placements degrade.
   

 

I don't think it is as much of a problem most places as you may be experiencing and I tend to fall on the "do nothing" side. It would be fairly tough and exclusionary to raise the standards (who's are you going to use?) and if you think the saturation problem exisits now, lower the seperation for some real fun.

 

Having said that, I would not mind seeing a requirement (yes, I used the "R" word) for a cache owner to acknowledge a cache is active every 12 months. A note on the cache would suffice or possibly a check box in the edit area, even going in and just resaving it could reset the clock. You could even archive or put up for adoption caches where the owner has not logged in the system for 12 or more months or some other predetermined time.

 

We currently have a few caches in my area where the owner put them up for adoption, there were no takers and they continue after he just abandoned them, sometime in a extreme state of disrepair, until someone finally posts a needs archive note.

[+SG-MIN]

My original post really was really more concerned with how the game may change rather then opening the can of worms associated with standards or cache distances. I just mentioned those because seems to be the only way to actually change the cache saturation issues (and my that I am talking about available locations). Would lowering the cache radius rule increase WalMart Caches, or allow multiple placements in the cool parks. Seems like it would be both. I do tend to think however that people would be more likely to utilize a lower cache radius in areas of interest like parks then in parking lots.

[+TrailGators]

My original post really was really more concerned with how the game may change rather then opening the can of worms associated with standards or cache distances. I just mentioned those because seems to be the only way to actually change the cache saturation issues (and my that I am talking about available locations). Would lowering the cache radius rule increase WalMart Caches, or allow multiple placements in the cool parks. Seems like it would be both. I do tend to think however that people would be more likely to utilize a lower cache radius in areas of interest like parks then in parking lots.

I have seen cache densities in parks out here increase to the point that there is almost to more room for anymore caches (legally placed within 30 feet of a trail). I think the park rangers will eventually get tired of people mindlessly bushwhacking and will remove all the caches in some parks. This already happened in two parks out here. Luckily we got them to allow caches again by agreeing to strict rules. Now you have to fill out a bunch of paperwork and go through a lengthy submittal process to get a cache in the park. So I think lowering the cache radius will cause a backlash based on what has happened out here. So the long-term result of lowering the cache radius will be more urban micros and less caches in parks. Edited November 6, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Sagefox]

I think appropriate use of the SBA button will help to keep the saturation level manageable.

[+Cache Heads]

I think appropriate use of the SBA button will help to keep the saturation level manageable.

Very good point.

[+sbell111]

I think appropriate use of the SBA button will help to keep the saturation level manageable.

Very good point.

Completely unworkable, however.

[+Cache Heads]

I think appropriate use of the SBA button will help to keep the saturation level manageable.

Very good point.

Completely unworkable, however.

I don't understand what you mean... an abandoned cache is rotting and taking up space (we all know there are plenty of them), you log an SBA, the cache gets archived and opens up the area to new caches. I did it just yesterday. How is this "unworkable"?

[+VeryLost]

What are your thoughts? I only see a few options:

1. decrease the 0.1 mile rule
   
2. raise standards for cache placement
   
3. do nothing and let placements degrade.
   

 

I don't think the problem really exists. Certainly it's not extreme if it does.

 

I live in a fairly saturated area, or so one would think at first glance. On a closer look, though, I can see a lot of room for more caches. Especially as the local suburbs are increasingly creating small neighborhood parks. I don't see any need to decrease the 0.1 mile restriction.

 

'Raising standards for placement' is so nebulous and open to interpretation that it's almost meaningless as a solution.

 

Your last option isn't an option at all, it's editorializing. 'Do nothing' does not imply placement degradation, nor does refusal to implement either of the first two choices guarantee that caches will decrease in quality.

[+VeryLost]

what we need to do as cache hiders is continually evaluate our hides and as they get older we should archive and allow for new placemtns in the area.

 

There has been a rash of this in my area over the past two weeks. Several of the major cache hiders in the area, "old timers", have archived large numbers of their caches. Some is just to open up areas to new caches, some in response to persistent muggling, some just to reduce their maintenance work load.

[+Renegade Knight]

I think appropriate use of the SBA button will help to keep the saturation level manageable.

Very good point.

Completely unworkable, however.

I don't understand what you mean... an abandoned cache is rotting and taking up space (we all know there are plenty of them), you log an SBA, the cache gets archived and opens up the area to new caches. I did it just yesterday. How is this "unworkable"?

The SBA log is for caches that need to be archived. It sounds simple enough but if it's viable and the owner can't be reached, it doesn't need archived. If the owner is alive and well but email dysfunctional the cache is viable. The SBA log has a specific purpose and it's over used by people who just don't know any better. The SBA log isn't meant to be pruning shears for trimming the geocache excess growth.

[Neos2]

I live in an area that is more saturated than others, and from what I've observed, there is no need to do anything. As in most things in life, things have a way of working out for the best.

 

As new cachers come into the area, old ones leave. Old caches that have been found by almost all the locals are preserves only if they are truely treasures--they are usually archived if they aren't really anything special and new caches take their place. People tire of one trend in caching and begin to convert old caches to some 'new' sort of container, hide, or cache type.

 

One area of town might gain a flurry of new caches as a new geocacher arrives on the scene and wants to share their vision--but at the same time, another area of the same town may lose several caches to new construction for the sake of progress.

 

New caches may spring up along a trail in a woodland park that previously spoted only one, but at the same time, others are taken away as a park is declared a wildlife preserve. The park that had the new flush of caches will eventually see most of those caches fade away as they fail to pass the test of time, until only one or two remain.

 

I'll miss a few good caches that I want to get to before they are archived, but I'll get to find a new one that someone puts near that spot sometime. Some of the people that find the cache I missed will like it, some will despise it, and others will find it and move on to the next without giving it much thought one way or the other; the same will be true of the eventual replacement.

[+hukilaulau]

I think appropriate use of the SBA button will help to keep the saturation level manageable.

Very good point.

Completely unworkable, however.

I don't understand what you mean... an abandoned cache is rotting and taking up space (we all know there are plenty of them), you log an SBA, the cache gets archived and opens up the area to new caches. I did it just yesterday. How is this "unworkable"?

The SBA log is for caches that need to be archived. It sounds simple enough but if it's viable and the owner can't be reached, it doesn't need archived. If the owner is alive and well but email dysfunctional the cache is viable. The SBA log has a specific purpose and it's over used by people who just don't know any better. The SBA log isn't meant to be pruning shears for trimming the geocache excess growth.

Uhh... isn't that what the previous poster just said? I've done this too... sometimes it takes a while but the cache eventually gets archived. But you bring up an interesting point. This is a dynamic game where the norms and sometimes the rules are in flux. Maybe the SBA log SHOULD be used as a pruning tool. A lot of folks have asked for a system of rating caches to weed out the worst ones. Perhaps this is it...

Something local cachers have done in my area is "reset a park." They pick one particular park and everyone agrees to archive their caches and start over. We have some county parks that have 20 or so caches in them. It can be a lot of fun to have one of them suddenly full of new caches again.

[+SG-MIN]

I am not advocating for a change, but wondering this:

 

Won't placing caches look drasticly differant for new caches in 10 years. I have a feeling all the "good" places will be taken and it will become a waiting game watching for archived caches to open up previously off limits areas.

 

On a plus side, I believe this will prompt more out of the way caches in places that require more of a hike. That is to say, this may in fact force more caches "off the beaten path." It seems like many major metropolises are approaching such heavy saturation that archived areas become the becoming the best way to place a cache in a cool location/

[+chuckwagon101]

Archiving, disabling, muggling and disinterest will make a nice balance for all this growth that is expected to take place.

 

A tower can only get so tall before it tumbles. There are many thousands of subtle influences that can change the projections of even the best thought out scenarios.

 

Sooooooo, just let-er-rip and see what happens!

[+Cache Heads]

The SBA log isn't meant to be pruning shears for trimming the geocache excess growth.

I see it less like pruning or trimming and more like exfoliating.

[+tozainamboku]

Uhh... isn't that what the previous poster just said? I've done this too... sometimes it takes a while but the cache eventually gets archived. But you bring up an interesting point. This is a dynamic game where the norms and sometimes the rules are in flux. Maybe the SBA log SHOULD be used as a pruning tool. A lot of folks have asked for a system of rating caches to weed out the worst ones. Perhaps this is it...

 

I think this is RK's objection. Using the SBA on a cache that is still viable just because the owner seems to have abandoned it is just one step away from using the SBA on caches that you think are lame. Perhaps this is where the 'Needs Maintenance' log could serve a purpose beyond just posting it needs maintenance in a DNF or found log. Perhaps reviewers can get a PQ of cache that have had Needs Maintenance set for more than some number of days. Based on reading the logs the reviewer could send email asking for the owner to perform the maintenance or risk having the cache archived. If there is no response from the owner the reviewer could archive the cache. On the other hand, if some good samaritan cacher has done the maintenance on behalf of the owner, the review could reset the Needs Maintenance attribute. I know some reviewers already do something like this.

[+Tripe_Finders]

We have exhausted most of the caches in our area so we search all week for a really good multi to do somewhere on the weekend. We have driven over a hundred miles to find a good hide. I guess it just depends on how bad you want to find something. There is always a new cache out there somewhere.

[+Cache Heads]

Uhh... isn't that what the previous poster just said? I've done this too... sometimes it takes a while but the cache eventually gets archived. But you bring up an interesting point. This is a dynamic game where the norms and sometimes the rules are in flux. Maybe the SBA log SHOULD be used as a pruning tool. A lot of folks have asked for a system of rating caches to weed out the worst ones. Perhaps this is it...

 

I think this is RK's objection. Using the SBA on a cache that is still viable just because the owner seems to have abandoned it is just one step away from using the SBA on caches that you think are lame.

I totally agree with this... there is a difference between an abandoned cache and one that needs to be archived. But the ones that are fine aren't the ones we're talking about. Some caches do fine without an owner-- but many rot, die and eventually disappear. After a reasonable amount of time has gone by without action, most of these should be archived for a number of reasons. This can be unfortunate in some ways, but one of the benefits is that the area is now open to a new cache (which may or may not be better than the old one!).

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we start logging SBAs for any cache that we'd like to see gone (I certainly wasn't). But if it's warranted, the SBA log can be an extremely healthy tool for the geocaching community.... stop me before I mention exfoliation again....

 

Perhaps this is where the 'Needs Maintenance' log could serve a purpose beyond just posting it needs maintenance in a DNF or found log. Perhaps reviewers can get a PQ of cache that have had Needs Maintenance set for more than some number of days. Based on reading the logs the reviewer could send email asking for the owner to perform the maintenance or risk having the cache archived. If there is no response from the owner the reviewer could archive the cache. On the other hand, if some good samaritan cacher has done the maintenance on behalf of the owner, the review could reset the Needs Maintenance attribute.

I really like this idea!

Edited November 6, 2006 by Cache Heads

[+Walts Hunting]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

[+TrailGators]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

I'll bring you a bucket of water because I agree with you! I guess I better bring one for myself too!

[+sbell111]

... I don't think anyone is suggesting that we start logging SBAs for any cache that we'd like to see gone (I certainly wasn't). ...

I guess you didn't read this post:

... Maybe the SBA log SHOULD be used as a pruning tool. A lot of folks have asked for a system of rating caches to weed out the worst ones. Perhaps this is it...

[+sbell111]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

Your bias is showing.

 

Just because you clearly don't care for micros doesn't mean that they are less worthy.

[+TrailGators]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

Your bias is showing.

Just because you clearly don't care for micros doesn't mean that they are less worthy.

He does have a good point. It would be nice to have an equal variety of cache types in each area. It's fine that some people like micros but there should be a limit. It seems like micros are spreading much faster than the other types. Edited November 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[Neos2]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

Your bias is showing.

Just because you clearly don't care for micros doesn't mean that they are less worthy.

He does have a good point. It would be nice to have an equal variety of cache types in each area. It's fine that some people like micros but there should be a limit. It seems like micros are spreading much faster than the other types.

If "each area" were exactly alike, perhaps there might be some merit in considering that idea more closely. Since every area is different, that is not even plausible.

[+sbell111]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

Your bias is showing.

Just because you clearly don't care for micros doesn't mean that they are less worthy.

He does have a good point. It would be nice to have an equal variety of cache types in each area. It's fine that some people like micros but there should be a limit. It seems like micros are spreading much faster than the other types.

Don't make me pull out the graph that shows that this is not true.

 

If that rule was instituted, it would do almost nothing to increase the number of regular-sized caches. It would, however, drastically change teh possibilities for urban caching. This would be fine for those that don't like micros (or urban caching), but it would lessen the fun for those that like them.

 

People who desire rules to limit micros forget that you and I have had years to hide larger caches in places that these hypothetical future micros might block. If the locations are so good, why isn't an ammo box already sitting there?

Edited November 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

Your bias is showing.

Just because you clearly don't care for micros doesn't mean that they are less worthy.

He does have a good point. It would be nice to have an equal variety of cache types in each area. It's fine that some people like micros but there should be a limit. It seems like micros are spreading much faster than the other types.

If "each area" were exactly alike, perhaps there might be some merit in considering that idea more closely. Since every area is different, that is not even plausible.

I agree. When looking at the raw numbers, it appears that micros could be taking over. However, reality is different. Micros hidden in an urban environment are often much closer than most people prefer larger caches in the woods to be. The fact is, most people don't want to stop every .1 mile to sign a log book when hiking on a nice trail.

[+TrailGators]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

Your bias is showing.

Just because you clearly don't care for micros doesn't mean that they are less worthy.

He does have a good point. It would be nice to have an equal variety of cache types in each area. It's fine that some people like micros but there should be a limit. It seems like micros are spreading much faster than the other types.

If "each area" were exactly alike, perhaps there might be some merit in considering that idea more closely. Since every area is different, that is not even plausible.

I have found plenty of large containers in urban areas. Some of them have been downright clever! So I like the idea of having a larger separation distance for micros. It also helps the saturation concerns.

[+sbell111]

I have found plenty of large containers in urban areas. Some of them have been downright clever! So I like the idea of having a larger separation distance for micros. It also helps the saturation concerns.

I think you will agree that micros are better suited for urban areas. Larger caches are much more likely to get muggled (or bomb squaded).

 

BTW, if we are only concerned about saturation, why don't we simply change to .5 mile separation for all caches?

[+Bad_CRC]

would be nice to have some kind of anonymous voting to get rid of awful caches.

 

if a cache is totally boring or badly done, kill it so a better one can come along.

 

 

anyway, we'll never run out of caches, since it's impossible for anyone to find all the caches that exist already.

[Neos2]

Or better yet, decrease the distance for micros, since they are so small anyway....and increase the distance for ammo cans and other larger caches to at least ten miles apart, since "everyone knows" that people who like those kinds of caches like to take ten miles hikes anyway!

[+SG-MIN]

 

Don't make me pull out the graph that shows that this is not true.

I want to see the graph

 

If that ru;e was instituted, it would do almost nothing to increase the number of regular-sized caches. It would, however, drastically change teh possibilities for urban caching. This would be fine for those that don't like micros (or urban caching), but it would lessen the fun for those that like them.

I don't think we are at a loss for urban caching opportunities as it is.

[+TrailGators]

Don't make me pull out the graph that shows that this is not true.

I want to see the graph

Me too! I'm from Missouri!

[+TrailGators]

Or better yet, decrease the distance for micros, since they are so small anyway....and increase the distance for ammo cans and other larger caches to at least ten miles apart, since "everyone knows" that people who like those kinds of caches like to take ten miles hikes anyway!

We could decrease the distance for a micro down to the point where you could put 1000 of them in a dumpster. We could call it a "Mega Micro" cache! The numbers people would love being able to log 1000 caches in a day. The people that don't want to walk would appreciate the convenience of being able to sit and relax and log more caches than they ever dreamed of! Others would like it because most of the caches they would find would not be just micros anymore because the numbers hounds would be busy doing Mega Micro caches!! Seems like a win-win to me!

 

Edit: Someone! Quick bring me some water!!!

Edited November 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Don't make me pull out the graph that shows that this is not true.

I want to see the graph

Me too! I'm from Missouri!

This graph is of Chicago-area regular-sized caches over time. As you can see, growth has been fairly steady since data collection began in January 2002. Regardless of the number of micros in the area, 'regular' caching is alive and well.

Edited to note that the graph is of regular-sized caches, not all non-micros.

Edited November 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Don't make me pull out the graph that shows that this is not true.

I want to see the graph

Me too! I'm from Missouri!

This graph is of Chicago-area non-micros over time. As you can see, growth has been fairly steady since data collection began in January 2002. Regardless of the number of micros in the area, non-micro caching is alive and well.

 

Now plot the micros in relation to those in red! I bet it was mostly blue for the first 1-2 years and then went mostly red!

Edited November 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Now plot the micros in relation to those!

Again, the number of micros doesn't matter. If someone doesn't like micros, they need not look for them. The graph shows that non-micros are not in decline or even being hidden at a reduced rate. Clearly the amount of micros being hidden has not affected the amount of non-micros being hidden. This, I believe, is due to the fact that they generally do not compete with one another on the basis of location. It is true that non-micros are hidden in urban areas and micros are hidden in the woods, but these examples are the great minority of caches.

[+sbell111]

Now plot the micros in relation to those in red! I bet it was mostly blue for the first 1-2 years and then went mostly red!

I have no idea what you are referring to.

[+TrailGators]

Now plot the micros in relation to those!

Again, the number of micros doesn't matter. If someone doesn't like micros, they need not look for them. The graph shows that non-micros are not in decline or even being hidden at a reduced rate. Clearly the amount of micros being hidden has not affected the amount of non-micros being hidden. This, I believe, is due to the fact that they generally do not compete with one another on the basis of location. It is true that non-micros are hidden in urban areas and micros are hidden in the woods, but these examples are the great minority of caches.

Go ahead and plot the micro trend! It would be interesting to look at the micro trend over that same period of time on the same graph!

[+SG-MIN]

I agree, you cannot make a point without including the chart for micros. Also, that chart is useless without some overall standard such as # of active cachers or # of total cache placements etc. As it is, you are unable to make any sufficient point concerning regular sized caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

How about we expand the saturation rule to .5 miles for micros. That should free up room for more worthy caches. Boy the response to this should be interesting. Better get my flameproof suit out.

.5 miles? Dont' you mean 0.05 miles? Micros are mostly (or should be!) urban caches. There is far more room in a city for micros than the current rules allow.

[+Renegade Knight]

Or better yet, decrease the distance for micros, since they are so small anyway....and increase the distance for ammo cans and other larger caches to at least ten miles apart, since "everyone knows" that people who like those kinds of caches like to take ten miles hikes anyway!

We could decrease the distance for a micro down to the point where you could put 1000 of them in a dumpster. We could call it a "Mega Micro" cache! The numbers people would love being able to log 1000 caches in a day. The people that don't want to walk would appreciate the convenience of being able to sit and relax and log more caches than they ever dreamed of! Others would like it because most of the caches they would find would not be just micros anymore because the numbers hounds would be busy doing Mega Micro caches!! Seems like a win-win to me!

 

Edit: Someone! Quick bring me some water!!!

 

Ok, that was funny. Dip them all in hotsauce and make the numbers ho's dive in in their birthday suits to log them. Call it a 5 for terrain. Yeah that's it. Better still have them hunt for a cache or two in the brambles then dumpter dive.

 

For the record, I gave alway all the free film canisters that I had collected over the years at the estate sale that we recently held. The only micro I own is for a cache to be called "A Nightmare On Elm Street" I just can't resist. The hard part is finding an Elm Street with the right Nighmare qualities.

[+sbell111]

Go ahead and plot the micro trend! It would be interesting to look at the micro trend over that same period of time on the same graph!

Here you go.

It looks like the Chicago area needs more micros to keep the balance the way some would want it.