Where is the densest concentration of caches?

[+flys low]

How many are in your area caches/square mile?

[+Isonzo Karst]

The most cache dense nation on earth is The Vatican

yeah, I know - 2 caches, but The Vatican City is only 0.17 sq mi so it averages one cache per .085 square miles.

 

 

There are a number of urban areas in the US where you could select for an area roughly = one square mile and get a boat load of caches...The Mall in Washington DC, parts of Los Angeles, parts of just a ton of different cities.

 

To get a square mile you would need to search a radius of .56 miles - not something you can do on this website, though possible in some programs.

 

If you defined your area as something a PQ would return, it would be more likely to have a specific answer. I believe the smallest search area would be 1 kilometer radius around a point.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+tabulator32]

The most cache dense nation on earth is The Vatican

yeah, I know - 2 caches, but The Vatican City is only 0.17 sq mi so it averages one cache per .085 square miles.

 

 

 

Ok, the obvious question...Do you think the Pope caches?

[TinyMoon & The Pumpkin King]

Why do you think he always has that huge ornate hiking staff with him ?

[+tabulator32]

Ha! Of course!

 

And I'll bet he has an awesome GPS antennae under that big hat!

 

 

That explains a lot!

[+snowfrog]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me.

[+tabulator32]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me.

 

I would oppose archiving caches based on frequency of visits for various reasons:

 

1. The cache might be a high terrain or complexity level and wouldn't expect too many visits from the general geocaching public.

 

2. The cache might be archived but who is to say the cacher who placed it would agree to go clean up his cache after it had been involuntarily archived.

 

3. Who decides the otherwise arbitrary time or frequency in which a cache is to be archived?

 

Just my opinion.

[+elmuyloco5]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me.

 

I would oppose archiving caches based on frequency of visits for various reasons:

 

1. The cache might be a high terrain or complexity level and wouldn't expect too many visits from the general geocaching public.

 

2. The cache might be archived but who is to say the cacher who placed it would agree to go clean up his cache after it had been involuntarily archived.

 

3. Who decides the otherwise arbitrary time or frequency in which a cache is to be archived?

 

Just my opinion.

 

I wouldn't want a mandatory archive for the reasons listed above, however, I think that the system should check for owners that have been absent for a year or more from the site and contact them. If they do not respond in 30 days, the cache should be automatically archived or adopted out. Every single cache should have an active owner to perform maintenance and to answer any questions the finders might have. I've looked in my tiny town and found at least 6 members that have not been to this site for at least a year, and each of those members owns multiple caches. You can imagine what a large city has. I think you would find that the quality of caches would go up and the number of places to hide would obviously increase as well, letting the active cachers have a better choice of areas to place.

[+snowfrog]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me.

 

I would oppose archiving caches based on frequency of visits for various reasons:

 

1. The cache might be a high terrain or complexity level and wouldn't expect too many visits from the general geocaching public.

 

2. The cache might be archived but who is to say the cacher who placed it would agree to go clean up his cache after it had been involuntarily archived.

 

3. Who decides the otherwise arbitrary time or frequency in which a cache is to be archived?

 

Just my opinion.

 

I stated in the original post that simple number of logged visits would not be the preferred method because some are remote in nature? There is no guarantee now that current archived caches are"cleaned up" by owners, or for that matter, new cache placements that are denied publishing such as vacation hides. How many folks go back to the vacation spot just to remove a denied cache placement.The frequency would be determined by a significant drop in visits as compared to say, the first year. Who decides anything now? What cache is published, what is archived, or what post is too disrespectful...........those who are considered worthy. Seriously though, the system could easily be set up to self monitor the 'find frequency percentage". The owner could receive a system generated e-mail warning of closure and needed removal, but in reality if it's a local favorite cache, second visits could manipulate the numbers to keep it open anyway. Only those of little interest would actually get archived, which is good right. The whole idea is not that any person or mod would have the power to retire a cache, but the decision would be made by us, the caching community by the lack of activity.

[Keystone]

The thread's topic asks about areas with high cache concentration. If you'd like to discuss methods for *controlling* high cache concentration, or forced archival of caches for reason X or reason Y, please start a new thread. Stay on-topic in this one. Thanks!

[+Kit Fox]

The thread's topic asks about areas with high cache concentration. If you'd like to discuss methods for *controlling* high cache concentration, or forced archival of caches for reason X or reason Y, please start a new thread. Stay on-topic in this one. Thanks!

 

Did you try the search function?

 

Density

 

Highest Cache Density

 

Snowfrog,

 

Can you post your idea as a new thread? I would love to debate that topic.

[+imajeep]

Ha! Of course!

 

And I'll bet he has an awesome GPS antennae under that big hat!

 

 

That explains a lot!

 

Actually, I think the hat is the antenna.