Too many caches placed by any one person

October 8, 2007

I think that placing caches should be limited to 3 or less per person. In the area I live only a few people have caches out, some with 15 or more, which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache.

There will reach a time with more and more people wanting to enjoy this sport, they will not be able to place a cache, they will only be able to look for a cache.

I brought this up to Graoundspeak, but they said I should voice my opinion on this forum. I don't know why the people in charge of this site can't or won't change it.

If somthing is not done about this soon. It won't be long before no one in a area, such as in the Saginaw, MI area will be able to place a cache.

Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

October 8, 2007

I think there are too many places in this world to place a cache . Being creative is the key.

October 8, 2007

I have some remarks:

Why limitations? If you want to place a cache, just do it.

Or even bether: do it together. The quality of the cache will rise because you have multiple toughts, ideas, creation, etc...

On the other hand, I think a cache should have a limited life cycle, i.e 3 years. After that period the cache owner should renew his/her ambition to keep the quality up to date. When there is no reaction or no intention the cache may be deleted automatically.

This way a certain intention is stated to keep the quality high.

Anyway, that are my two pennies...

Kind Regards,

Hans

7.2k · October 8, 2007

I have no plans to archive any of my caches. In fact, I have two containers ready to put out, bumping up my total hidden. I want to fix a couple of disabled caches first though. I would say this is a bad idea.

(Some of the virtuals I own right now (7) will be adopted out to local cachers soon though.)

Edited October 8, 2007 by mtn-man

1k · October 8, 2007

So your saying that in Saginaw, MI there isnt a single place to hide a cache that isn't 0.1mi from another cache? Somehow I dont believe that. If you want to see some serious cache density, come out to California. Even out here we still manage to find places for more caches.

There are lots of ways to hide new caches in a cache rich area. Check out some hiking/biking trails in the area. Local parks are always a good spot. Larger parks can even support many caches if spaced properly. If your stuck with urban spots like a shopping mall or something, a fake rock in a planter or fake electrical cover works good.

If your still looking for a good spot and find one, but there is a cache too close, just email the other cache owner if they would consider archiving their cache to make room for your new hide. If it were a quality hide, I would honor such a request.

October 8, 2007

Hiding a cache is as much a part of the game as is finding.

October 8, 2007

Very poor idea. The more the better. In 17.4 sq. mi with some creativity there can be a lot of caches placed. I've never been there but there are, I'm sure, county and state parks around it for caches too. If you have a good idea at a certain place ask a cacher with a cache there if he will share the space with you. I have archived a few of mine to make way for new ones at the request of the other cachers. What we don't need are more rules and limitations.

October 8, 2007

I think there are too many places in this world to place a cache . Being creative is the key.

Well, you just can't place a cache anywhere. There is a limit of 528 feet between them. So in some areas there is no place to put them.

October 8, 2007

Hiding a cache is as much a part of the game as is finding.

Well, I might add that we do need more rules, and more precise rules.

October 8, 2007

I have no plans to archive any of my caches. In fact, I have two containers ready to put out, bumping up my total hidden. I want to fix a couple of disabled caches first though. I would say this is a bad idea.

(Some of the virtuals I own right now (7) will be adopted out to local cachers soon though.)

This is not CA, and you really have to look for a good place in the area to place a cache that is not to close to another. That is unless you want to drive 100 miles to place a cache and keep track of it.

2.7k · October 8, 2007

Hi GeoBearDude. Welcome to the forums.

The great majority of "new" ideas get shot down very quickly here so don't be discouraged that most of us won't agree with you. You are fairly new at this and have out 1 hide already. I waited somewhat longer to gain more experience but yours is already generating very positive logs. Good job. But ....

caches should be limited to 3 or less per person No. If you only have time to properly maintain 3 caches that should be your limit. If you have more time, hide more caches. And some cachers have no time or interest to place/maintaining any caches. That's fine too.

which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache. I don't agree. Several times someone has placed a cache nearby and I womder why didn't I think to put one there? After two years at this I am still finding interesting spots to place new caches. They are not always right on my doorstep, but close enough. I wish I had a week to explore Saginaw with you. I would find a spot to place a size small or larger cache.

18.9k · October 8, 2007

While I sympathize that your area may be getting "filled up", I don't think limiting to 3 hides is the answer. As others have said - sometimes just a bit more creativity may locate a new spot. Also - it is very apparent that some are good hiders and some are good finders. I would encourage you to get out and enjoy finding what others have done. Then when a good opportunity presents itself in your area - see if you can hide a new one.

The areas that are getting full are tiny in comparison to areas that have only a few scattered caches across vast stretches.

2.6k · October 8, 2007

Welcome to the forums, you might have better luck in your local forums, but I doubt it.

Looking at Google maps for your area west of Saginaw it looks fairly wide open and not a lot of caches :laughing:

4.2k · October 8, 2007

Sorry, I can't support your idea either. Think of how slowly the sport would grow if each person could only hide three caches. What you propose means that those willing to hide caches for others would have to sit back and watch for others to POSSIBLY place caches that they would have already placed. The game itself would suffer.

Some enjoy hiding, others seeking. We shouldn't limit or restrict either group.

I currently have hidden 28 caches and wouldn't want a limit set on them.

Edited October 8, 2007 by kealia

October 8, 2007

GeoBearDude-

Welcome to the forums. You might try the Michigan Geocacher's Organization (www.mi-geocaching.org) to voice your concern.

I was thinking about cache density the other day. When I started geocaching, I lived in Salt Lake City. I checked and from my home coordinates there were 200 caches within a 3 mile radius.

I moved to the west Detroit Suburbs and right now there are 200 caches with in a 7 mile radius, so much less cache dense, but still plenty of room for opportunities.

I checked based on the one cache you've placed, and there are 200 caches within a 17 mile radius, so there are many many opportunities for hiding.

I've got my eyes on a couple of places in my 7 mile radius that could use caches, or at least where I could place caches. There are many many opportunities for hiding new caches.

Limiting cache hides would limit the number available for you to find. I wouldn't want that!

Cheers-

moscow32

2.6k · October 8, 2007

I, too, have to jump on the "bad idea" bandwagon.

First, I find it hard to believe that there is no place left to put a cache. Sure, maybe the best and/or easiest spots may be taken, but I seriously doubt ALL available spaces are taken. With the amazingly high number of caches in this area, there are new ones coming out almost every day and I dare say just about any place in Michigan has more cover for caches than the majority of Texas.

Limiting the hides per cacher? No way. As the homely yet astute kealia has pointed out, the game would be nowhere near the place it is with that restriction. Besides, why should others be limited in their hides just because they can think of ways to place hides in places you can't?

I really have a problem with your later assertion of needing more and more precise rules. Why? It's been working generally OK up til now. What kind of rules do you have in mind? Requiring certain kinds of containers? Requiring they be hidden certain ways? I find the game too restricted already in many ways.

Another person said they thought we should have a hard time limit on caches. Couldn't disagree more. A cache should be allowed to exist as long as it is maintained. Some of the best caches are those that have been around for 5 or 6 years. Many of them are local legends that people travel for miles to find. Why take that away?

I know we have a lot of undermaintained caches and a good bit of geoliter out there, but hide and time restrictions aren't the answer to that. Maybe Groundspeak should get local volunteers to who archived cache lists can be provided periodically and these volunteers could go out and be sure archived caches are removed. Kind of a reviewer counterpart on the back end of chache lives.

As to your other issues, others have laready said it. Use your imagination, get creative, and find ways to hide them where you think they can't go. Your fellow cachers will appreciate it!

1.3k · October 8, 2007

528' is actually pretty small. Saginaw doesn't look that dense!

Think I'd be pretty upset with Groundspeak if they limited hiders to 3 caches! Most of the really great hiders in my area are also really enthusiastic hiders constantly finding new great spots for a cache! I don't think I'd ever find all those spots on my own.

1.3k · October 8, 2007

Another person said they thought we should have a hard time limit on caches. Couldn't disagree more. A cache should be allowed to exist as long as it is maintained. Some of the best caches are those that have been around for 5 or 6 years. Many of them are local legends that people travel for miles to find. Why take that away?

I love finding the old ones and reading the logs that are now a little piece of caching history!

I know we have a lot of undermaintained caches and a good bit of geoliter out there, but hide and time restrictions aren't the answer to that. Maybe Groundspeak should get local volunteers to who archived cache lists can be provided periodically and these volunteers could go out and be sure archived caches are removed. Kind of a reviewer counterpart on the back end of chache lives.

Theres a local cache that was archived b/c it was too close to another cache (but the area was pretty distinctly different) I believe it exists now as a terracache. Think there'd be a pretty upset owner if it got removed. I do agree that geolitter from archived abandoned caches is a problem, but I don't know if the answer is to send people to make sure all archived caches are gone...

1k · October 8, 2007

Well, I might add that we do need more rules, and more precise rules.

Well, you just can't place a cache anywhere. There is a limit of 528 feet between them. So in some areas there is no place to put them.

This is not CA, and you really have to look for a good place in the area to place a cache that is not to close to another. That is unless you want to drive 100 miles to place a cache and keep track of it.

Wow, you seem really bitter. Are you upset because there are already caches in the popular spots where you would like to place a cache? There are many others that have been Geocaching for a lot longer then you, so they have had time to scope out and hide caches in the cool locations. Just remember that location isnt everything. You could hide a great cache in a crappy location and I'd flock to see it, but I wont necessarily go find a crappy hide in a great location.

I still also disagree with your arguments about caches being too close. There are so many places to hide a cache. From the looks of it, you have only found 14 caches so far. If your having trouble thinking of places to hide a cache, go out and find more caches to get some ideas. Most newbies to this hobby/game/sport copy a cache hide they have previously found. Use those years of pipefitting experience and design a cache that blends with its surroundings.

You might also check to see if there is an upcoming event in your area. Visit the event and talk with some of the veteran geocachers to get some ideas for your next hide. Oh, and please have a more open mind about ideas at the event then you do here on the forums. :laughing:

Edited October 8, 2007 by ShowStop

5.3k · October 8, 2007

It's a big, big world out there. It's impossible for me to believe that ALL the hiding places are taken up. Expand your horizons.

Edited to add: Search for Saginaw, MI returns only 350 caches within a 30 mile radius. Certainly the area is not saturated. There are 354 caches within a 10 mile radius of me.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Motorcycle_Mama

2k · October 8, 2007

I have 80+ hides, but I regularly archive the ones that didn't turn out as well as I liked.

I've always been of the mindset that caches should have a 2-3 year lifespan. After that time, a note is posted on the cache asking "do you really want to keep this cache active", with an option of an automatic renewal (keep the listing on the site) or an archive.

The automatic note might make people rethink if their cache is "worthy" of continuing.

But nobody else seems to like that idea, when I've brought it up.

1.2k · October 9, 2007

Maybe King Boreas will move to your area

7.2k · October 9, 2007

Maybe King Boreas will move to your area

Some day I am going to beg someone at GC.com to tell me how many of his caches I published. It has got to be around 600 to 700.

I know you were just confused GeoBearDude, but I am from GA, not CA. Atlanta is a dense cache area too, but new ones get listed every day here.

October 9, 2007

NO offense beardude but you need to spend some time finding all those caches

This area is pretty dense also but i have never run over one when driving so there is still plenty of room. (Okay, I take that back, I did run over one onetime but I was in 4x4 mode) ...

October 9, 2007

If we are limited to only 3 cache hides, will this encourage the cachers who DON'T hide to start doing so? I don't think so.

3 year time limit, don't like that idea either. I enjoy logging those 4 and 5 digit waypoint caches and reading the logs. This would also eliminate the Ape Cache and Original Stash Tribute. 2 Northwest must dos.

October 9, 2007

748 within 17.8 miles. In my area there are ~650 in the same space with more coming.

I know of a few cachers that have 30-100 and a couple with several hundred hides. I appreciate thier efforts and see little benefit to add any more restrictions.

October 9, 2007

More limitations... less fun.

I just checked out Saginaw/MI at GoogleEarth and can't see a very high density of caches.

And: If there will be a limitation of hiding fe. max. 3 caches this would be too sad. I would hide additional caches with a new account! A 3 year time limit is also bad idea - so great and wonderfull caches would be gone :-(

Happy hunting,

keep relaxed,

and don't think about more rules,

Martin

8.9k · October 9, 2007

I've got 894 within 17.8 miles.

GC103GK as the center, and you've got 1096 in 17.8 miles

October 9, 2007

It looks like the lots of room to place cache.

I don't like the 3 year rule either. Many older caches have a lot of great history.

October 9, 2007

When I click on the "find all nearby caches" link on the page for the one cache you hid, the search returns 752 nearby caches. When I do the same search for a cache near my home, the search returns 6967 nearby caches. I think your area still has some room to grow.

October 9, 2007

Hiding a cache is as much a part of the game as is finding.

Well, I might add that we do need more rules, and more precise rules.

No, I don't think we need more rules. I've been to Saginaw and found a few caches although it's been awhile. As I recall and from looking at the maps, there are lots of places to hide caches there. Sometimes you just have to create a cache to match the area available.

October 9, 2007

Yup, bad idea.

Go out near MBS International and place a TB Hotel. That's one you could place right there.

I did a search for all nearby caches centered on Freeland and there're only 695 in a radius of 50 miles. So if my brain is working this morning that means you have 695 caches in an area of 7,850 square miles. Compared to 2,212 in the same area around where I live, 20 min from Atlanta.

I'm sure you can find a place to put a cache.

Edited October 9, 2007 by roveron

October 9, 2007

Coming up with a way to encourage quality vs. quantity would be great, but I don't think this would accomplish that goal.

24.7k · October 9, 2007

...Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

If people with 15 caches placed have blocked all the cool spots that you would like to place caches, then you really need to get out caching because you don't know your area and there is a lot to see.

While you are out and about you will see and find places that you didn't know about. You will also pass some up and maybe investigate a few on your own. Then you will find places to put your own cache that are well worth a trip.

5.7k · October 9, 2007

I concur with what pretty much everyone is saying: your area is far from saturated.

There are currently 750 active caches within 50 miles of your cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...;lon=-84.110883

There are currently 3,251 active caches within 50 miles of my home coordinates:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...mp;lon=8.228467

And I know that there are plenty of places left for hiding caches around Wiesbaden -- I am currently planning a small series of caches to hide in a wooded area near an event cache I'm sponsoring in November, about a mile from our house.

I recommend you go find more caches, see what possiblities there are around you, and get inspiration from other cachers -- you'll get more ideas as to where caches can go in your area.

Edited October 9, 2007 by hzoi

3.6k · October 9, 2007

When we started caching, I thought I knew all the local parks near where we lived, but I was amazed when we started finding caches in areas that were right around the corner that we never knew existed.

One thing you could do is go online to local park and rec websites. Most towns list the locations of their parks. That's a great place to start hiding since they're closeby. Sometimes you might need to think outside the box to come up with a creative hide, but we've found some awesome caches in parks less than half an acre in size.

October 10, 2007

I think that placing caches should be limited to 3 or less per person. In the area I live only a few people have caches out, some with 15 or more, which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache.

There will reach a time with more and more people wanting to enjoy this sport, they will not be able to place a cache, they will only be able to look for a cache.

I brought this up to Graoundspeak, but they said I should voice my opinion on this forum. I don't know why the people in charge of this site can't or won't change it.

If somthing is not done about this soon. It won't be long before no one in a area, such as in the Saginaw, MI area will be able to place a cache.

Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

I do believe that there should be no limits placed on anyone placing caches. Try coming up to northern Ontario, where there are approximately 50 square miles without caches for every cache already placed. A one rule fits all mentality is why we always argue when our favourite politician does not get voted in. :laughing:

11.3k · October 10, 2007

I think that placing caches should be limited to 3 or less per person. In the area I live only a few people have caches out, some with 15 or more, which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache.

There will reach a time with more and more people wanting to enjoy this sport, they will not be able to place a cache, they will only be able to look for a cache.

I brought this up to Graoundspeak, but they said I should voice my opinion on this forum. I don't know why the people in charge of this site can't or won't change it.

If somthing is not done about this soon. It won't be long before no one in a area, such as in the Saginaw, MI area will be able to place a cache.

Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

Whoops . . . guess I have to Archive more than 100 caches. Which ones would you like me to Archive so someone else can place a cache in those locations? :laughing:

October 10, 2007

Here in the Greater Cleveland, Ohio area, we have just as much hiding them then finding them. The most fun is beating someone else before they hide one in the same spot THEN having them cry about it! No one gets mad, but we sure mess with eachother about it!

Man, limit me to 3? I would be shutting down a cache just to hide another one and the goal is to see how long it can stay active!

19k · October 10, 2007

It looks like the lots of room to place cache.

I don't like the 3 year rule either. Many older caches have a lot of great history.

Sigh... just look at that lovely map!!! I wish geocaching.com used those!

October 10, 2007

It looks like the lots of room to place cache.

I don't like the 3 year rule either. Many older caches have a lot of great history.

Sigh... just look at that lovely map!!! I wish geocaching.com used those!

Those were good days... :mad:

(sorry for the quick hijack)

Edited October 10, 2007 by wwflover13

October 11, 2007

I think that placing caches should be limited to 3 or less per person. In the area I live only a few people have caches out, some with 15 or more, which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache.

There will reach a time with more and more people wanting to enjoy this sport, they will not be able to place a cache, they will only be able to look for a cache.

I brought this up to Graoundspeak, but they said I should voice my opinion on this forum. I don't know why the people in charge of this site can't or won't change it.

If somthing is not done about this soon. It won't be long before no one in a area, such as in the Saginaw, MI area will be able to place a cache.

Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

I guess one more and you're done right? I hope not. You've just started and have a couple great caches. I hope to see many more from you. I have twenty so I guess I'm part of the problem. I've got TWO more just about ready to go! I love hiding just as much as finding. There are quite a few great spots I know of around Saginaw. Drop me an email and we can colabarate if you like.

14.3k · October 11, 2007

I think that placing caches should be limited to 3 or less per person. In the area I live only a few people have caches out, some with 15 or more, which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache.
There will reach a time with more and more people wanting to enjoy this sport, they will not be able to place a cache, they will only be able to look for a cache.

I brought this up to Graoundspeak, but they said I should voice my opinion on this forum. I don't know why the people in charge of this site can't or won't change it.

If somthing is not done about this soon. It won't be long before no one in a area, such as in the Saginaw, MI area will be able to place a cache.

Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

There are people that have hundreds of caches and for some of those hiders, I wish this feature existed. Anyhow, you can't limit people as everyone and their brother has already stated. I would especially hate to see older caches archived for newer ones. I really enjoy finding older caches. The older the better.

October 11, 2007

Hi, another avid Saginaw hider here. I’ve got to agree with Mike, I’ve enjoyed both of your hides (man, was Homer a toughie), and hope you keep hiding them. There’s lots of room in our area (Saginaw County) for new caches. Roethke park (where your first one is) still has plenty of room – there’s a whole section with no caches in it at all.

The bigger county parks (Price, Imerman, and Ringwood) have caches, but there’s still a lot of space for more (I’m eyeing a couple of places in Ringwood right now). Of course you should find the caches that are in these parks already so you know what areas are open (especially since a couple of them are puzzles and a couple are multi’s – and you have to be .1 away from each stage) but again, there are whole sections with no caches. You’ll have to be careful at Imerman as it tends to flood every spring. (You should do Nedwob’s cache there – Above the Flood Waters – to see a good way to get around that). Veterans Memorial Park is very long (a couple of miles) along the river and just has my one little cache in it (Salad Daze) lots of room there for more caches.

When I was placing the Bug Crew caches I found a bunch of small parks in the township. I really enjoyed the logs from cachers who said “I’ve lived here my entire life and never new this park was here.” There are several small parks in the area around Saginaw (Freeland, Saginaw Township, James Township, Thomas Township, Carrollton) just crying for caches. The Saginaw rail trail and the Zilwaukee walking trail as well.

Of course, being in Freeland, you’re half way to Midland – Midland desperately needs caches. There are dozens of parks without any caches at all, and even most of the big parks only have one or two caches. Bay City is the other direction but still very close. Tons of parks in Bay City too, including the state park. It’s huge – lots of room for caches, and they love geocachers (the park employees have hidden a couple of caches and even hosted a couple of events). Just be sure you follow the rules for hiding in a state park (filling out the permit & asking permission). The state parks in Michigan have a lot of restrictions and charge a placement fee – but MiGO (Michigan Geocaching Organization) has worked with the state to institute a placement policy and MiGO pays a blanket fee to cover all caches placed by MiGO members. You should consider joining MiGO, it’s a great organization and membership is free.

I don’t want to brag (o.k. I do) but Mike, mizdeeds, and I have some tricky hides (Mike’s Mini Meanie series and our In Plain Sight series have received great reviews) and I think if you find a few more of the caches in the area, you’ll see some great possibilities for hiding caches. Team Kobudo’s Not For the Faint of Heart series is fantastic as well. I guess the bottom line is - explore the area and find a few more of the local caches. You’ll find that, the more you get into it, the more possibilities you’ll see.

You should try to come to the next local event. The Bay City state park has one or two every year, and TeamLJ has started having meet & greets in Auburn every couple of months. The MiGO Winter Social is in February (not sure what city it will be in yet). Or just drop one of us an email – we’re a pretty friendly bunch and always meeting up at a park for a little impromptu group caching. Sorry to overwhelm you with information, but there are so many possibilities out there.

Windrose

October 11, 2007

Looks like you placed your three. Your done hidding caches. Now go find more.

October 12, 2007

I know we have a lot of undermaintained caches and a good bit of geoliter out there, but hide and time restrictions aren't the answer to that. Maybe Groundspeak should get local volunteers to who archived cache lists can be provided periodically and these volunteers could go out and be sure archived caches are removed. Kind of a reviewer counterpart on the back end of chache lives.

I agree with this idea, or even adding more reviewers period. Ours does a bunch of states around us. I have no problem with our reviewer, but there's no way he could actually go out and see all of these caches. I think a more hands on approach would be helpful as we've found several that are in what is deemed "illegal" areas. Not even sure how they got published quite frankly. Reviewer helpers would be an improvement.

And to the OP, if everyone was limited to 3 caches, think of how many caches would be gone from your area. Sure, that would allow you to place 3 caches in places you might prefer over what you have now, but it will also give you less to find. You would then have to venture to your 100 miles away that you don't want to.

I suggest that you get more creative. Look on the boards some more. There are some great threads on unique cache containers that might spark your creativity. We've found some great caches that weren't placed in any place special, but we still had fun. And we've been to some great areas with wet, soggy, moldy caches full of trash. Both ways can afford a good time. Try making a puzzle cache, or a themed cache. There are still plenty of ways to enjoy hiding caches.

And above all.....don't be afraid to get out beyond that 100 miles. One of the best things we did was doing our statewide challenge. We've taken the kids to many sites that we normally would've pushed off saying we just didn't have time to go that far.

And if you really think you have it bad, you should try living in a town 5 miles long, with only 15,000 people........and it all being surrounded by Indian land and National Park land. Sometimes you just have to make lemonade out of lemons and take a drive (by the way, we have a ton of caches for our little town, and I can still find places to hide more).

Edited October 12, 2007 by elmuyloco5

October 12, 2007

I think that placing caches should be limited to 3 or less per person. In the area I live only a few people have caches out, some with 15 or more, which leaves no place for a new person to place a cache.

There will reach a time with more and more people wanting to enjoy this sport, they will not be able to place a cache, they will only be able to look for a cache.

I brought this up to Graoundspeak, but they said I should voice my opinion on this forum. I don't know why the people in charge of this site can't or won't change it.

If somthing is not done about this soon. It won't be long before no one in a area, such as in the Saginaw, MI area will be able to place a cache.

Let me know what all of you think on this subject.

It's interesting to get the perspective of a new player. While your "3 or less per person" proposal seems arbitrary and impractical, I appreciate the fact that there are a lot of caches out there and it can seem like all the good locations are taken. Certainly, placing caches is harder than it used to be.

By way of reference, I placed one of the first caches in my city in 2001 and there are now a couple hundred. I frequently see new caches going into places that I had rejected as being either poor or inappropriate. To make matters worse, areas open to caches are shrinking in part because of poorly placed caches that antagonize authorities. And then there is the proximity guideline itself which makes placing caches anywhere around multi-caches, puzzles and membership caches fraught with uncertainty; even the reviewers get confused.

So, what is the would-be cache hider to do? There are several trends in the game that provide some answers:

1. Expand your territory into cache-poor areas. The problem here is not only the transportation costs but the fact that there is usually a good reason no caches are there. Still, there may be interesting possibilities in your area. You just have to explore and, if you do place a cache, accept the fact that it probably will get fewer visitors than the prime locations.

2. Be creative. This can be hard for a new cacher to do although I've seen some great hides by unknowns. Typically, you have to find a certain number of caches (20, 30, 50?) to get a feel for the possibilities and what you like. Clever camo, history lessons, challenge caches, themes, puzzles, etc.--people's creativity keeps the game alive.

3. Adopt good caches. Get to know the other local cachers and keep in touch. People frequently move and some of them would be happy to hand over their caches to a responsible owner.

4. Use micro, sub-micro and "other" caches that can be hidden almost anywhere. This is the least desirable approach IMHO but many people hunt these types so it comes down to what containers you are willing to use.

Hiding can be more fun than finding. Think about what will work in your area and try it.

October 19, 2007

I have noticed the same thing. Each week when I get my Notification the NEW caches closest to my house are always by the same user. :surprise:

October 19, 2007

When I click on the "find all nearby caches" link on the page for the one cache you hid, the search returns 752 nearby caches. When I do the same search for a cache near my home, the search returns 6967 nearby caches. I think your area still has some room to grow.

I am not complaining about where to hide caches in the area. I am just saying that in the future maybe 10 or 20 years down the road, there might not be any place to hide a cache.

7.2k · October 19, 2007

I am not complaining about where to hide caches in the area. I am just saying that in the future maybe 10 or 20 years down the road, there might not be any place to hide a cache.

Maybe, but you will get lots of finds.

Too many caches placed by any one person

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment