Cache Saturation...

[+gordonandskosh]

Is there any flexibilty on how close one cache can be to another?

 

The site says:

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

The cache I placed is 377 feet instead of 528 feet and I asked the reviewer to make an exception. He said he couldn't on that location. He suggested I ask the other owner to archive or move his.

 

How strict is the rule and is the reviewer's decision final, or can I appeal?

[+sbell111]

Is there any flexibilty on how close one cache can be to another?

 

The site says:

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

The cache I placed is 377 feet instead of 528 feet and I asked the reviewer to make an exception. He said he couldn't on that location. He suggested I ask the other owner to archive or move his.

 

How strict is the rule and is the reviewer's decision final, or can I appeal?

As I understand it, exceptions are made if there is some physical object (cliff, river, fence, etc) that separates the two caches. Other than that, I think you are out of luck.

 

appeals are possible, but I doubt one would be successful unless there is something in between the two caches.

[Keystone]

On what grounds did you request an exception? Successful examples include caches at the top and bottom of a cliff, or on opposite sides of a river with no bridge nearby. Recently I listed two that were less than 400 feet apart, but on opposite sides of a narrow lake. The reviewers look for some sort of natural barrier between the two locations.

[+gordonandskosh]

there are no obstructions and i don't really have a sound reason for asking other than i really like the location i selected. i guess i don't have grounds for appeal, thx for the answers!

[Keystone]

If there is something really cool at the coordinates you've selected, make it a first-stage virtual waypoint in a multicache. Have the finder gather a clue from that spot which takes them to a physical cache that meets the cache saturation test. Virtual waypoints are no longer subject to the cache saturation test, as of February 2007.

[+CSpenceFLY]

Does a virtual cache count in the saturation test?

[+ODragon]

Does a virtual cache count in the saturation test?

 

Nope, nor does a webcam or an earthcache!

[+Renegade Knight]

there are no obstructions and i don't really have a sound reason for asking other than i really like the location i selected. i guess i don't have grounds for appeal, thx for the answers!

 

Alas a good spot by itself isn't enough. If 300' is a wonderful location and 528' is a parking lot...you have to use the parking lot to get it listed here. That or turn it into a crappy multi cache.

[+Moose Mob]

Shameless plug:

 

I own two that are 69 feet apart. Above the Eagles and Below the Eagles (and no, we don't have eagles out here, just hawks and pidgeons)

[+ar_kayaker]

I have two that are 300' apart...vertically, and about 200' horizontially. I got the exception based on the vertical seperation, the fact that they are both mine, no others nearby, and of different types (a micro first stage vs a regular sized traditional)

 

You just have to learn how to work around the issues the reviewer has with the proximity problems.

 

AK

[+briansnat]

Another option is to steal the cache that is too close. Go back a few days later and issue an SBA and when it's archived your spot will be open.

 

This method has the additional advantage of you getting a new container and trade items for your next placement.

[+StarBrand]

Another option is to steal the cache that is too close. Go back a few days later and issue an SBA and when it's archived your spot will be open.

 

This method has the additional advantage of you getting a new container and trade items for your next placement.

I'm glad you hang out about 1800 miles east of here.....

[+thedeadpirate]

Another option is to steal the cache that is too close. Go back a few days later and issue an SBA and when it's archived your spot will be open.

 

This method has the additional advantage of you getting a new container and trade items for your next placement.

 

You forgot to add the smiley.

[crawil]

[+emurock]

Another option is to steal the cache that is too close. Go back a few days later and issue an SBA and when it's archived your spot will be open.

 

This method has the additional advantage of you getting a new container and trade items for your next placement.

 

You forgot to add the smiley.

Edited May 9, 2007 by emurock

[+briansnat]

Another option is to steal the cache that is too close. Go back a few days later and issue an SBA and when it's archived your spot will be open.

 

This method has the additional advantage of you getting a new container and trade items for your next placement.

 

You forgot to add the smiley.

 

What makes you think I was joking? How do you think I can afford almost 200 hides?

[+Markwell]

Does a virtual cache count in the saturation test?

 

More to the point - does a virtual stage of a multi-cache count in the saturation, and my reading of the current guidelines says "it depends".

 

Since no more virtuals can be listed on Geocaching.com (only on Waymarking.com), the answer that new virtuals don't count doesn't help the original poster.

[+CSpenceFLY]

Does a virtual cache count in the saturation test?

 

More to the point - does a virtual stage of a multi-cache count in the saturation, and my reading of the current guidelines says "it depends".

 

Since no more virtuals can be listed on Geocaching.com (only on Waymarking.com), the answer that new virtuals don't count doesn't help the original poster.

 

I was asking that because I know of a place that would be great for a cache but someone was lazy and just made it a virtual. I realize there are places where a virual was a better idea but this is not one of them IMO.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You can place a physical cache near an existing virtual, webcam or earthcache. You can create a virtual (no container) stage of a multi cache near anything.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

I own two caches in the same park that I placed with some difficulty in keeping them apart the suggested distance . . . a reviewer then later approved a new cache placed between the two that is within the range of the two older caches.

 

What is vital is that is is absolutely impossible for anyone seeking any one of the three to trip over one of the others . . . THIS is a good reason to say YES in approving the new cache or any other ones and a good decision on the part of the approver.

 

Sometimes, the distance concept simply makes good sense, sometimes it does not . . . maybe that is a reason it is NOT a rule, but a reasonable consideration that should be treated liberally.

Edited May 10, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi Grandpa Alex - sometimes it is a rule too. I participated in talks with a local parks department on geocaching policy. So far they're okay with the Groundspeak policy, BUT they want the cache saturation rules enforced. They'd actually like fewer caches - a saturation rule on a .2 distance, but are willing to leave things alone. They don't want to spend staff time on it.

 

Exceptions on saturation aren't going to happen in that parks system. I'm sure this is true elsewhere.