Caching or Littering?

[SenselessThing]

When does "geocaching" become "littering"?

 

I live in rural England and searched using my zip code (PO7 4SN) for the first time in several months, to see whether there were any new ones in my area since I started geocaching 3 years ago. I was shocked and appalled by the number in my area; 24 within 5 miles! I think there should be an exclusion zone around each cache, it would be easy to do automatically in your website - making it impossible to log a new cache within a certain radius.

 

The increasing density puts pressure on geocachers to find new sites, with the potential for inappropriate siting becoming more likely. In the long run this will do no good for the image of the activity. The amount of material also puts a burden on the environment, a respective for which I originally felt that geocaching was helping to foster.

 

Senselessthing

[+BlueDeuce]

[+Michelle_mike]

 

154 within 5 miles

That reminds me I've got a couple more to go hide.

Thanks

[magellan315]

There is an "exclusion zone". I believe that caches can be placed no closer than .10 of a mile to an exsisting cache. There are 63 caches within 5 miles where I live with no impact. Badly placed caches either never make it past the approvers or get muggled.

Edited January 3, 2007 by magellan315

[+Yno]

406 within 5 miles of my office. They somehow seem to be in the cleanest areas. Could this be due to the fact that cachers pick up more litter than they leave?

[BRTango]

Surprisingly, I only have 13 within five miles of me... although I'll be trying to make that 16 sometime this week and 17 - 20 within a month.

 

However, I have a little over 200 within 10 miles of me... so no worries about running out

[Keystone]

As noted, there is a 528 foot (170 meter) saturation guideline, and also the so called "power trail" guideline, which reviewers use sometimes when people go "cache crazy" and hide a cache every 550 or 600 feet "just because they can."

 

Since this is not a "Getting Started" issue, I am moving the thread to the "Geocaching Topics" forum.

[+briansnat]

The increasing density puts pressure on geocachers to find new sites, with the potential for inappropriate siting becoming more likely. In the long run this will do no good for the image of the activity. The amount of material also puts a burden on the environment, a respective for which I originally felt that geocaching was helping to foster.

 

The increasing density also helps to spread out visits so no one cache site gets overwhelmed. I find that even though there are many more geocachers now than there were 3-4 years ago, my caches now get far fewer hits because there are so many more caches for people to find. A few years ago my caches would get constant hits because there were only a limited amount in the area. Now even new caches will go weeks and often months between logs. This gives the area around the cache time to recover and reduces impact.

Edited January 3, 2007 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

When does "geocaching" become "littering"?

Geocaching becomes littering if archived caches (which are not active on another site) are not removed. Otherwise, it is not littering, in my opinion.

 

Active caches that are maintained are not litter.

[+Renegade Knight]

The increasing density puts pressure on geocachers to find new sites, with the potential for inappropriate siting becoming more likely. In the long run this will do no good for the image of the activity. The amount of material also puts a burden on the environment, a respective for which I originally felt that geocaching was helping to foster.

 

The increasing density also helps to spread out visits so no one cache site gets overwhelmed. I find that even though there are many more geocachers now than there were 3-4 years ago, my caches now get far few hits because there are so many more caches for people to find. A few years ago my caches would get constant hits because there were only a limited amount in the area. Now even new caches will go weeks and often months between logs. This gives the area around the cache time to recover and reduces impact.

 

I have observed the same trend.

[Jeremy]

I was shocked and appalled by the number in my area; 24 within 5 miles!

 

There are 77 pubs within 5 miles of that postal code, according to pubfinder.com. My guess is there are other types of inebriation (err saturation) in your area to worry about.

 

This was said tongue in cheek. Just putting things into perspective.

[+StarBrand]

24 caches in 78 square miles of area. Look at it that way. No need to panic yet.

[+Ambrosia]

Hm...this made me look at my area. I thought it was a bit funny (no offense meant) that you were suprised at 24 caches with 5 miles. Looking at people's responses in here, I see that some others have pretty high numbers.

 

When I started almost 5 years ago, there were 2 caches within 5 miles of my zipcode. There are now 150. That doesn't include over 100 caches that have been archived in that same time period.

[+sbell111]

345,940 caches in the 196,950,711 square miles closest to me.

[+Hotlanta]

My local caching area is thick with geocaches. About an equal number of micros and regular size, which makes it nice for a little diversity. The thing I've noticed about our local geocaches is that they seem to get recycled. What I mean is that caches pop up in a park or shopping center and last for a year or so, then they get archived and a new cache comes along shortly in the same area. We do have some older caches that are of exceptional value, such as scenery or history or geo-skill requirements. But I really do like the way our local caches tend to change types or owners. And this rotation a caches also helps keep down most social trails that occur at the more popular nature park caches. We have many new local geocachers joining and this recycling will give them a chance to place a cache that is close to home, which also makes it easier to maintain your cache. Just my two cents worth.

[+Ambrosia]

345,940 caches in the 196,950,711 square miles closest to me.

 

Well! Don't limit yourself, or anything.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Ambrosia

[+sbell111]

345,940 caches in the 196,950,711 square miles closest to me.

Well! Don't limit yourself, or anything.

I only included caches that I would like to find, one day.

[+Ambrosia]

345,940 caches in the 196,950,711 square miles closest to me.

Well! Don't limit yourself, or anything.

I only included caches that I would like to find, one day.

Oh, ok then.

[magellan315]

I was shocked and appalled by the number in my area; 24 within 5 miles!

 

There are 77 pubs within 5 miles of that postal code, according to pubfinder.com. My guess is there are other types of inebriation (err saturation) in your area to worry about.

 

This was said tongue in cheek. Just putting things into perspective.

 

That certainly puts things in perspective.

[+Bad_CRC]

I'm guessing they are micros.

 

I'm growing to hate micro spew more and more each day. People throw out 20 or 30 caches in one day, saturating the entire area with shotty caches.

 

I had been working for weeks on one really unique one that I planned on placing this spring (not till spring since it requires water access), a real quality cache that would be one of the more memorable and fun in this part of the state and would require special equipment and planning to reach... and someone threw a micro in a parking lot very close to the area, as part of the 20 caches they threw out on that one day, invalidating, or nearly invalidating the site.

 

If people want to put out or find shotty micro caches, that's their own business, but if someone can throw out dozens in a day, and in the process make entire areas unavailable to quality caches, that's a real detriment to the hobby, not to mention annoying as all hell.

 

/rant

 

[+sbell111]

I'm guessing they are micros. ...

If you are referring to the OP, you are mistaken. Only one is a micro. Most are 'large'.

 

You are also forgetting that this is 24 caches within an area with a radius of five miles. That is a pretty large area; close to 80 square miles, I think.

 

I think that you may be defaulting to rant mode too quickly.

Edited January 3, 2007 by sbell111

[+Ambrosia]

Hm. About 60 of the 150 in my radius (from the center of town) are micro. And most of those are either mystery/puzzles, or unique hides/containers. Almost all of them are well thought out.

[+mrring]

We have 28 caches within 5 miles of my zip code, 10 of these we hid.

 

If you really care about caching, as an owner or a hunter, then you're doing it right BUT if you don't care (owners that leave their caches and don't check on them, even after negative comments) then you are littering. Ultimately it's up to the owner to keep their cache in shape BUT as hunters we can help to keep the tradition going by CITO.

 

Caching or Littering - you have decide for yourself how you want to play the game.

[+Renegade Knight]

345,940 caches in the 196,950,711 square miles closest to me.

 

Cache physics. Cache space is mostly empty.

[+nooks]

I was shocked and appalled by the number in my area; 24 within 5 miles!

 

There are 77 pubs within 5 miles of that postal code, according to pubfinder.com. My guess is there are other types of inebriation (err saturation) in your area to worry about.

 

This was said tongue in cheek. Just putting things into perspective.

 

..and aren't pubs a Waymarking category?

[+nooks]

 

....... but if someone can throw out dozens in a day, and in the process make entire areas unavailable to quality caches, that's a real detriment to the hobby, not to mention annoying as all hell.

 

 

I'm not a fan of micros, but then I haven't really experienced them since I live in a rural area. I do agree with you about caches that are not well thought out. I was wondering if it would be possible to put a "hold" on an area for a limited period of time, say 30 days, which would expire automatically if the cache wasn't approved. I have yet to place a cache, but the caches I want to place require some thought and there is a cacher in my area who is planting 3 - 4 a week. 30 days should be a good amount of time to get it together, don't ya think?

 

Cheers,

nooks

[+sbell111]

... I was wondering if it would be possible to put a "hold" on an area for a limited period of time, say 30 days, which would expire automatically if the cache wasn't approved. ... 30 days should be a good amount of time to get it together, don't ya think?

I'm pretty sure that this is already done. Contact your reviewer.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hey, wait a minute! There are 57 caches within five miles of my home coordinates. And I think that a low saturation rate.

My sister is going to bring kayaks down this summer, so I can eliminate/find those annoying BrianSnat kayaking caches! In return, I promised her a 60 cache find day (okay, I've already found all the local micros. That should make it easier.)

[+Confucius' Cat]

Crap!

I only gots 5. Gee you (possibly derrogatory name for people who live in England deleted) are dense!

[+Lucy & Roo]

We only have one within a 5 mile radius, and as such are very jealous. We would love to have lots of caches closer to home, as it is we expect to travel at least 50 miles (round trip) every time we go to look for a new cache, as we slowly do all the caches close to us. As we venture further we will probably be doing long day or weekend trips and covering several hundred miles at a time.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I'm guessing they are micros.

 

I'm growing to hate micro spew more and more each day. People throw out 20 or 30 caches in one day, saturating the entire area with shotty caches.

 

I had been working for weeks on one really unique one that I planned on placing this spring (not till spring since it requires water access), a real quality cache that would be one of the more memorable and fun in this part of the state and would require special equipment and planning to reach... and someone threw a micro in a parking lot very close to the area, as part of the 20 caches they threw out on that one day, invalidating, or nearly invalidating the site.

 

If people want to put out or find shotty micro caches, that's their own business, but if someone can throw out dozens in a day, and in the process make entire areas unavailable to quality caches, that's a real detriment to the hobby, not to mention annoying as all hell.

 

/rant

 

No, really, tell us how you feel. Don't hold back. You're in a safe place.

[SenselessThing]

Many of the points made against my original statment are falacy -

 

Cache visits could diminish with time because there are more to choose from? - Have you considered that it could be because all the local cachers have hit them and visits are less numerous as they come from further afield? To test these independant variables you would at least need to know the rate that new geocachers arrive in a known area.

 

Areas adjacent to a cache are cleaner because geocachers clear up rubbish? - Even if one accepts the notion that geocachers typically take refuse bags around with them to pick up litter (I don't accept this), it also depends on your definition of litter - I am beginning to think of a geocache as a concentrated, hidden pile of junk - just because it is not of low concentration and not visible does not exclude it from being 'litter'! Fly-tipped washing machines are surely litter, what's the difference?

 

Comparisons with other zip codes (urban?) are irrelevant, I live in a rural area. Besides which I think they add weight to my arguement rather than diminish it.

 

My conclusion is that geocachers are generally 'waypoint collectors' blindly following their GPSr screen, with no real interest in the (rural) environment in which they find themselves, and that they are ambivalent about the impact of their activities. This is a shame since the origins of the sport were closely linked to worthy causes such as development of navigational skills, outdoor pursuits and a respect for the environment.

 

I simply despair at the envy one contributor admits to, living in a 'low density' area - surely this persuit is still meant to be a challenge?

Edited January 4, 2007 by SenselessThing

[Dinoprophet]

Many of the points made against my original statment are falacy -

 

Cache visits could diminish with time because there are more to choose from? - Have you considered that it could be because all the local cachers have hit them and visits are less numerous as they come from further afield? To test these independant variables you would at least need to know the rate that new geocachers arrive in a known area.

I believe the person who said that was referring to his own new caches, which means it's new to the entire community, not just to new cachers. Several people have also referred to the turnover of caches, allowing new caches in old areas. These, also, are new to everyone, not just to new arrivals. So you would not need to know the number of new arrivals; you would simply have to monitor new caches.

 

Areas adjacent to a cache are cleaner because geocachers clear up rubbish? - Even if one accepts the notion that geocachers typically take refuse bags around with them to pick up litter (I don't accept this), it also depends on your definition of litter - I am beginning to think of a geocache as a concentrated, hidden pile of junk - just because it is not of low concentration and not visible does not exclude it from being 'litter'! Fly-tipped washing machines are surely litter, what's the difference?

I'm sorry you don't accept the idea of cachers carrying rubbish bags, or that the community in your area doesn't promote the idea. It happens here all the time. Almost every cacher in my area includes rubbish bags in their cache placements. But since you don't accept that, then you're right, it depends on your definiton of litter. Your definiton includes caches -- for most people here, it does not. The primary difference, as has been pointed out, is that a cache is maintained and is not placed with the intention of leaving it there indefinitely. That is not true (or again, maybe it is in your area, with archived caches being abandoned. Here it is not).

 

Comparisons with other zip codes (urban?) are irrelevant, I live in a rural area. Besides which I think they add weight to my arguement rather than diminish it.

I agree with you there, although I would expect a higher concentration in a rural area.

 

My conclusion is that geocachers are generally 'waypoint collectors' blindly following their GPSr screen, with no real interest in the (rural) environment in which they find themselves, and that they are ambivalent about the impact of their activities. This is a shame since the origins of the sport were closely linked to worthy causes such as development of navigational skills, outdoor pursuits and a respect for the environment.

That may well be your perception. I assure you it isn't true here. In my area at least, cachers are very good stewards of the land.

 

I simply despair at the envy one contributor admits to, living in a 'low density' area - surely this persuit is still meant to be a challenge?

And, yet again, it depends on the area. A hundred lightpost micros are not a challenge. A hundred ammo cans in 78 sq miles of wildrness can be.

 

I notice I answered almost every point here with "not in my area". I suggest the problems you see may have to do with the attitude of cachers in your area. Please consider that this might be the case instead of broadbrushing all of us with characteristics that most of us find offensive -- we care deeply about the outdoors, and it's unpleasant to have someone tell us otherwise.

 

ETA:

The increasing density puts pressure on geocachers to find new sites, with the potential for inappropriate siting becoming more likely. In the long run this will do no good for the image of the activity. The amount of material also puts a burden on the environment, a respective for which I originally felt that geocaching was helping to foster.

First, you're right that it puts pressure to find new areas, and I have found many, many new parks and natural areas that I didn't know about in the process of looking for new sites. That's a good thing, no?

 

Second, as many have said, I believe the burden is far outweighed by the benefit. I've always enjoyed the outdoors, but only since geocaching have I taken it upon myself to clean others' trash out of an area, or even spend an afternoon doing nothing but cleaning up a dirty park.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+Happy Humphrey]

There are plenty of challenging caches around: many in the UK take all day (sometimes more) to complete. As well as challenging ones, there are many which take you to interesting little spots which only the locals know about. That's the type I like most.

 

If you're "appalled" that there are quite a few around, and assuming that these are good caches, I would respectfully suggest that geocaching is not for you!

 

As far as litter is concerned, the impact of a small camouflaged box covered with leaves and twigs (traditional style) is laughably slight. Many times I've had to search an area which looks like unspoilt countryside, and even away from the path there is an amazing variety of beer cans, bottles, crisp bags etc. - only the cache is hard to spot.

 

If a cache is maintained and well-hidden, it's not litter.

 

In the countryside the main problem with geocaches is the impact of visitors trampling the ground: but this pales into insignificance when you compare it with walkers' impact on any popular footpath. And again, this is insignificant when compared with cyclists' and motocyclists' impact on footpaths (pet hate!).

Edited January 4, 2007 by Happy Humphrey

[CoyoteRed]

When does "geocaching" become "littering"?

 

The question is loaded.

 

First, it should be "when does a geocache become litter?"

 

The answer: when the cache is no longer maintained and is no longer a viable cache.

 

In order for the OP's question to be valid there needs to be a certain level or percentage of caches that have become litter. Only then would geocaching be synonymous with littering.

 

As has been said many times, "even a well maintained cache can be litter." Well, I suppose that could be true, but then you'd also have to say trail markers and signs are also litter. It would then follow that trail blazes on trees are graffiti. I could go on.

 

The point is, don't try to be absolute in your definition of "pristine." Even the LNT folks recognize we have to go poop sometime. And given that few, very few, caches are even in view, how is it that folks even know they are there?

 

Where is Criminal with his "Tortured Guy" pic?

Edited January 4, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Paul G0TLG]

I live about ten miles from SenselessThing, so I guess that makes me the first of his "neighbours" to contribute to this thread. I've done most of the caches that are within 5 miles from him (I've done 15 of the 24, and have fail-to-finds on 3 others) so I think I can claim to know the area pretty well.

 

I'd just ask - which of those caches do you think is too close to another? And which, if any, do you think are of sufficiently poor quality that they shouldn't be there? Some of them do look quite close to each other, but because of the layout of private land and footpaths in the area are some distance apart when you consider travelling distance. Few, if any, are cache-and-dashes, most are a reasonable distance from the nearest parking.

 

Looking down the list, I can't think of any of those 18 caches I've either found or attempted, which hasn't been in a high-quality, enjoyable location. I bet there aren't many clusters of 18 caches we can say that about.

 

(Edited to add: I've just noticed that the OP has only logged one of the 24 caches in his 5-mile radius - and it's one he owns anyway! How can you criticise 24 caches based on the experience of one, which you placed yourself? I would add that it's one of the ones I've done, and it IS good!)

Edited January 4, 2007 by Paul G0TLG

[+sbell111]

When does "geocaching" become "littering"? ...

Generally, when there is disagreement in the forums, it helps to understand the other person's motivations. Your's are lost to me.

 

You have eight logged finds. None since September 2003. Since you haven't logged any finds in the last 3.25 years, I have to assume that your motivations are not related to other people not maintaining their caches.

 

You have three hides. These hides are well maintained and well recieved. They average a bit over two finds per month. I assume that your motivations are not related to a desire to have more visits or less visits to your caches.

 

As already addressed, your area is fairly sparsely filled with caches with less than one cache for every 3 square miles. Therefore, I assume that your motivations are not related to a cache glut in your area which could give outsiders the perception that caches are a litter problem.

 

What, exactly, is the problem?

[+sbell111]

Just a little more data on the 24 caches in question:

 

They were placed by 16 different players. No one placed more than three.

 

Sixteen of the caches are regular-sized, five are micros, and three are small.

 

Eleven are traditional caches, ten are multis, three are puzzles.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Generally, when there is disagreement in the forums, it helps to understand the other person's motivations. Your's are lost to me.

...just a little light trolling, perhaps?

[GermanSailor]

I'm guessing they are micros.

 

I'm growing to hate micro spew more and more each day. People throw out 20 or 30 caches in one day, saturating the entire area with shotty caches.

 

I couldn't agree more!

 

GermanSailor

[+sbell111]

I'm guessing they are micros.

 

I'm growing to hate micro spew more and more each day. People throw out 20 or 30 caches in one day, saturating the entire area with shotty caches.

I couldn't agree more!

 

GermanSailor

Too bad that's not what this thread is about.

[SenselessThing]

I don't specifically have a disagreement (other than with the logic of some of the arguements postulated in reply to my initial posting); I am merely instigating a debate: I heard about geocaching in 2003 after buying a GPSr as a navigational aid and explored out of curiosity; my three 'hides' were also set up (near places I often visit) out of the same motivation. I rarely check on the activity of my caches, other than a cursory look to make sure they are not causing a nuisance; my caching activity has been limited to this recently.

 

I was really taken aback when I saw the huge increase in volume in my area since 2003; I disagree with the discription 'sparesly' when we are taking in these comparative terms. If all these caches were rounded up it would amount to an enormous volume of debris - litter - when even 3 years ago this volume would have been negligable. My concern is for the environmental impact of this activity and whether the volume of spurious debris left in the countryside should be limited - my concerns for the environment outweight the whims of geocachers hell-bent on placing more and more hides; where does it stop? - that is my motivation.

 

I hope that straightens you out.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SenselessThing

[+Snoogans]

I don't specifically have a disagreement (other than with the logic of some of the arguements postulated in reply to my initial posting); I am merely instigating a debate: I heard about geocaching in 2003 after buying a GPSr as a navigational aid and explored out of curiosity; my three 'hides' were also set up (near places I often visit) out of the same motivation. I rarely check on the activity of my caches, other than a cursory look to make sure they are not causing a nuisance; my caching activity has been limited to this recently.

 

I was really taken aback when I saw the huge increase in volume in my area since 2003; I disagree with the discription 'sparesly' when we are taking in these comparative terms. If all these caches were rounded up it would amount to an enormous volume of debris - litter - when even 3 years ago this volume would have been negligable. My concern is for the environmental impact of this activity and whether the volume of spurious debris left in the countryside should be limited - my concerns for the environment outweight the whims of geocachers hell-bent on placing more and more hides; where does it stop? - that is my motivation.

 

I hope that straightens you out.

 

Well then. I suggest you pull YOUR caches to do your part for the environment.

[+sbell111]

... My concern is for the environmental impact of this activity and whether the volume of spurious debris left in the countryside should be limited - my concerns for the environment outweight the whims of geocachers hell-bent on placing more and more hides; where does it stop? - that is my motivation.

I would argue that properly maintained caches of the type and quantity shown in your area have virtually no negative environmental impact.

Edited January 4, 2007 by sbell111

[+Snoogans]

... My concern is for the environmental impact of this activity and whether the volume of spurious debris left in the countryside should be limited - my concerns for the environment outweight the whims of geocachers hell-bent on placing more and more hides; where does it stop? - that is my motivation.

I would argue that properly maintained caches of the type and quantity shown in your area have virtually no negative environmental impact.

 

I wouldn't waste my time arguing the OP's foregone conclusion. It will be fun to watch though.

 

Edited January 4, 2007 by Snoogans

[+Paul G0TLG]

My concern is for the environmental impact of this activity and whether the volume of spurious debris left in the countryside should be limited - my concerns for the environment outweight the whims of geocachers hell-bent on placing more and more hides; where does it stop? - that is my motivation.

 

I agree that your motivations are good, and environmental concerns are real and important.

 

However, I think people on here might be a bit more sympathetic to your cause if you had some experience of those 24 caches, so you could say something like "I've done 20 of them, and more than half were placed so that people had to trample wild flowers to access them" - or whatever. You can't really say that caching is having a detrimental environmental impact when you've not logged any finds for so long.

 

Unless of course you have other experience/evidence to back up your claims? But if you have, and don't tell us what it is, you can't blame us for not taking account of it.

[SenselessThing]

"which of those caches do you think is too close to another? .. do you think are of sufficiently poor quality that they shouldn't be there? ...hasn't been in a high-quality, enjoyable location".

 

Paul G0TLG - I have no arguement with any of the specific points you raise, with this specific area in mind. But your arguements are all from a geocacher-specific perspective, not from an general environmental perspective!

 

Proximity, quality, location are not factors when considering whether it is or is not littering in my point of view. It IS littering - discarding man-made material in a natural environment. Is it acceptable, and to what level is the point for consideration - It is approaching the limit in my point of view.

 

ST

 

PS Glad you enjoyed the cache :0)

[+sbell111]

"which of those caches do you think is too close to another? .. do you think are of sufficiently poor quality that they shouldn't be there? ...hasn't been in a high-quality, enjoyable location".

 

Paul G0TLG - I have no arguement with any of the specific points you raise, with this specific area in mind. But your arguements are all from a geocacher-specific perspective, not from an general environmental perspective!

 

Proximity, quality, location are not factors when considering whether it is or is not littering in my point of view. It IS littering - discarding man-made material in a natural environment. Is it acceptable, and to what level is the point for consideration - It is approaching the limit in my point of view.

 

ST

 

PS Glad you enjoyed the cache :0)

Actually, proximity and location are important to the issue, in my mind. If the location was exceptionally frail or multiple caches were placed close enough together that a casual trail formed between them, for instance.

 

Edited to add that quality could also be in an issue. If the cache quality is bad because the cache is not being maintained, it could certainly be turning into refuse.

Edited January 4, 2007 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

I don't specifically have a disagreement (other than with the logic of some of the arguements postulated in reply to my initial posting); I am merely instigating a debate: I heard about geocaching in 2003 after buying a GPSr as a navigational aid and explored out of curiosity; my three 'hides' were also set up (near places I often visit) out of the same motivation. I rarely check on the activity of my caches, other than a cursory look to make sure they are not causing a nuisance; my caching activity has been limited to this recently.

 

I was really taken aback when I saw the huge increase in volume in my area since 2003; I disagree with the discription 'sparesly' when we are taking in these comparative terms. If all these caches were rounded up it would amount to an enormous volume of debris - litter - when even 3 years ago this volume would have been negligable. My concern is for the environmental impact of this activity and whether the volume of spurious debris left in the countryside should be limited - my concerns for the environment outweight the whims of geocachers hell-bent on placing more and more hides; where does it stop? - that is my motivation.

 

I hope that straightens you out.

 

Geocaching must agree with you in part because there is a cache saturation rule. Not only must there be .1 mile separation between caches, but reviewers apply what Keystone called the "power trail" guideline to keep one cacher from monopolizing an area. In some areas, land managers have asked for tighter staturation rules and the local reviewers will enforce these. There are also area where land managers have requested time limits on how long a geocache can remain in place. Along with respecting private property and getting adequate permission I fail to see the environmental problem you talk about.

 

There is still an issue regarding the removal of geocaches when they are no longer viable and being maintained. Sometimes people quit geocaching and abandon their caches. In some case they may even archive the listing but leave the container. As Geocaching.com is not the only place to list a geocache, it is a difficult question as to whether geocachers should remove a cache that has been archived and appears to be abandoned. This issue of geo-litter is worth discussing in the forums.

[SenselessThing]

"which of those caches do you think is too close to another? .. do you think are of sufficiently poor quality that they shouldn't be there? ...hasn't been in a high-quality, enjoyable location".

 

Paul G0TLG - I have no arguement with any of the specific points you raise, with this specific area in mind. But your arguements are all from a geocacher-specific perspective, not from an general environmental perspective!

 

Proximity, quality, location are not factors when considering whether it is or is not littering in my point of view. It IS littering - discarding man-made material in a natural environment. Is it acceptable, and to what level is the point for consideration - It is approaching the limit in my point of view.

 

ST

 

PS Glad you enjoyed the cache :0)

Actually, proximity and location are important to the issue, in my mind. If the location was exceptionally frail or multiple caches were placed close enough together that a casual trail formed between them, for instance.

 

Edited to add that quality could also be in an issue. If the cache quality is bad because the cache is not being maintained, it could certainly be turning into refuse.

 

Sure, proximity and location can exacerbate the problem! I'm not likely to argue with that!