Should there be a limit to amount of caches owned?

[+Hobo2]

I’m sure this subject has come up, but I couldn’t find it. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great to have so many caches to choose from, I enjoy that. But isn’t variety from many cachers better than lots of caches by just one person? When does it become “against the rules” to have so many caches that you couldn’t possibly maintain them all? Just how many is too many, this is the question?

 

The reason I’m saying this is because there is a cacher in my area (I wont say who out of respect), that has over 650 caches. It may be all well and good to own quite a few, but that many surly can cause a few down sides.

 

The first downside I can think of, is what I alluded to above, there is no way all of these caches can remain, to any degree, quality caches, just because of the maintenance issue. I don’t care how much time you have on your hands, maintaining 650 caches is an impossibility for anyone… even if there micros.

 

Second and mostly, doesn’t placing so many caches limit others from placing one of there own? In some areas there just aren’t that many real good caching spots. In other words, doesn’t this action by just one cacher, by owning so many caches, force newbes out of the good spots for instance. Furthermore, how about having variety? If only one cacher is allowed to monopolize a whole area, is this as much fun, or fare, to the rest of us?

 

Isn’t it reasonable to set a limit as to the amount of caches any one person can place, if for no other reason than to keep the game fresh with new players? Once anyone places a cache, this makes it imposable for anyone to place a cache within 528’ of that cache. Moreover, if you think of that measurement in circumference, now you have a radius of over 1,000 feet off limits for anyone else, is this fare?

 

Snowfrog started a thread

(http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=178001), asking if we should archive caches after a curtain amount of time, to give others a chance at that spot. I don’t think this is the answer, for now, if there was a limit set as to the amount of caches one person can own. Otherwise, I think something like this is inevitable, just because it will become a saturation issue some day.

[+Kit Fox]

No limit

 

A cacher is allowed to place as many caches as they want to. Provided that all the caches meet Groundspeak guidelines, and are properly maintained, no changes need to be made.

 

How do you know it's impossible to maintain "so many caches, even micros?"

 

I have over 90 active caches, and most of them rarely if ever, have maintainence issues.

 

Good Containers, and well chosen locations, prevents 99% of maintenance issues.

Edited November 21, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+egami]

On a thread long ago, similarly to this proposal, someone once mentioned not a hard cap limit total, but a hard cap limit in say some sort of radius...like you could only have 10 within a 10 miles radius.

 

I see the point behind it, but like in my vicinity there aren't many cachers. I could place 20 caches in a ten mile radius and not be stepping on anyones shoes.

 

It's be difficult achieving that balance. I would like to think, our of courtesy, a cacher wouldn't monopolize an area...especially a limited one.

[+StarBrand]

No limit.

 

The only limitation is to place no more then you can take care of in a reasonable amount of time.

 

I currently have 420 caches within 100 miles of my home. Of those, 89 are mine - and there are still hundreds of thousands of places for new caches.

[+paulandstacey]

There's a lot of things that we dont see as "possible" - 500 + hides, 25000 + finds, 200 or more finds in a day. But, just because they aren't possible for us, doesn't mean they aren't possible for others.

 

Unless there is some sort of evidence the hiders in question aren't maintaining their caches, you can't say they aren't doing it.

 

Some people have very little time to cache, others have a lot.

[+Hobo2]

No limit

 

A cacher is allowed to place as many caches as they want to. Provided that all the caches meet Groundspeak guidelines, and are properly maintained, no changes need to be made.

 

How do you know it's impossible to maintain "so many caches, even micros?"

 

I have over 90 active caches, and most of them rarely if ever, have maintainence issues.

 

Good Containers, and well chosen locations, prevents 99% of maintenance issues.

Good point, but do you really think 650 caches can be maintained? How about 1,000, how about 2,000? I understand you are capable of maintaining 90, although I don't know how you find the time, but it is possible some do not? Do the math, lets say after a year or so the caches start to need some attention, if you checked on 2 per day it would take you a year.

[+egami]

Good point, but do you really think 650 caches can be maintained? How about 1,000, how about 2,000? I understand you are capable of maintaining 90, although I don't know how you find the time, but it is possible some do not? Do the math, lets say after a year or so the caches start to need some attention, if you checked on 2 per day it would take you a year.

 

I think the better issue to focus on isn't the number aspect in relation to maintenance, but rather the number aspect in relation to density and the potential cache-hogging factor. Is it fair for a cacher to be allowed to dominate a region? That might be the best arguement, but even then...I am not sure a hard cap is the answer. I'd like to think the reviewers would have an unwritten rule to avoid this.

[+paulandstacey]

I know of plenty of people with less than 10 caches who don't maintain them. People who will maintain their caches, do. People who won't, don't. Limiting the number of hides won't change that.

[+egami]

I know of plenty of people with less than 10 caches who don't maintain them. People who will maintain their caches, do. People who won't, don't. Limiting the number of hides won't change that.

 

Yeah, I just ran into one recently that had maintenance requests from last July and people decided to log finds on it because it was active and there were cache remains scattered about. I finally got in contact with the owner and they finally disabled it. They have no caches found to their name and one cache that they host. I think it's more to indirectly advertise their "group" than to be involved in geocaching, but they've carefully skirted outright solicitation.

[+Hobo2]

Good point, but do you really think 650 caches can be maintained? How about 1,000, how about 2,000? I understand you are capable of maintaining 90, although I don't know how you find the time, but it is possible some do not? Do the math, lets say after a year or so the caches start to need some attention, if you checked on 2 per day it would take you a year.

 

I think the better issue to focus on isn't the number aspect in relation to maintenance, but rather the number aspect in relation to density and the potential cache-hogging factor. Is it fair for a cacher to be allowed to dominate a region? That might be the best arguement, but even then...I am not sure a hard cap is the answer. I'd like to think the reviewers would have an unwritten rule to avoid this.

Yes, this is what worries me, your right on track. While I think it would take a Supercacher to truly maintain more than 100, the real issue is as you said, "cache-hogging". I live in an area that offers endless opportunely for placement, but in the city I can see a real problems. Example, my Grandson who lives in the city wanted to place his own cache. I wanted to make it easy for him to maintain... close to home, but every conceivable place for him was taken by the distance rule. After we gave up, I came home and looked at all the owners. As it turned out there were only 5. So out of an area he could ride his bike to... around 50 caches, the same cacher owned about 40 of them. Now I ask is this fare?

[+paulandstacey]

It mightn't be fun, but it isn't unfair. I've seen lots of places I'd like to build a house, but there's already one there - someone beat me to it.

 

As the game grows, this is going to be more of an issue. At least there are lots to find!

 

It's better to focus on the fact that these people are spending time and money on these caches to provide enjoyment to you, your grandson and other cachers. I wish there was someone else hiding caches aroudn here, but I enjoy hiding and finding. If I couldn't hide any more, it wouldn't stop me from finding more, getting exercise and having fun.

[+Hobo2]

It mightn't be fun, but it isn't unfair. I've seen lots of places I'd like to build a house, but there's already one there - someone beat me to it.

 

As the game grows, this is going to be more of an issue. At least there are lots to find!

 

It's better to focus on the fact that these people are spending time and money on these caches to provide enjoyment to you, your grandson and other cachers. I wish there was someone else hiding caches aroudn here, but I enjoy hiding and finding. If I couldn't hide any more, it wouldn't stop me from finding more, getting exercise and having fun.

Good point, and as you said it will become an issue, I think sooner than latter, maybe right now. I enjoy getting out looking for caches more than building them, but I have built some because I feel it is my obligation to contribute.

 

As far as the house analogy, this is why there are building codes, maybe some caching codes are in order?

[+paulandstacey]

I don't think a "he took my spot" or "he's got too many caches" code will ever be in place.

 

I understand your frustration, I just think it's better to enjoy what's out there. Would you feel different if the area was still saturated by 100 different cachers? You still couldn't hide any. What if they were all boring, lame or in poor condition?

 

If I was in a cache saturated area with mainly good, well maintained caches, I'd feel pretty lucky. Worrying about finding a spot to hide one of my own would be far down my list of concerns.

[+BlueDeuce]

I know a couple three cachers who can have my unused cache placement quota. They place much better ones than I could ever do.

[+egami]

No blue colored pilgrim hats?

[+paulandstacey]

I don't think a "he took my spot" or "he's got too many caches" code will ever be in place.

 

I understand your frustration, I just think it's better to enjoy what's out there. Would you feel different if the area was still saturated by 100 different cachers? You still couldn't hide any. What if they were all boring, lame or in poor condition?

 

If I was in a cache saturated area with mainly good, well maintained caches, I'd feel pretty lucky. Worrying about finding a spot to hide one of my own would be far down my list of concerns.

[crawil]

Hobo2,

 

Have you contacted the super-cache placer to see if he/she would archive one in a chosen spot so your grandson could place one there?

[+egami]

For second there I seriously thought I was having deja vu because I looked above and saw my last reply above that repeat, lol.

[+BlueDeuce]

No blue colored pilgrim hats?

 

It's my Puritan hat and fancy colors are for Heathens.

[+Hobo2]

I don't think a "he took my spot" or "he's got too many caches" code will ever be in place.

 

I understand your frustration, I just think it's better to enjoy what's out there. Would you feel different if the area was still saturated by 100 different cachers? You still couldn't hide any. What if they were all boring, lame or in poor condition?

 

If I was in a cache saturated area with mainly good, well maintained caches, I'd feel pretty lucky. Worrying about finding a spot to hide one of my own would be far down my list of concerns.

I think your missing the point here. You and me both like finding more than hiding, lets agree on that. But what about the beginner, there's the rub. If a place is saturated by one cacher, I do feel this is unfair, it means others cant hide. But lets say an area is saturated by many cachers, is this fare? This is where the other question of archiving old caches comes into play. I would be hurt to have my well maintained cache archived, but if it meant someone else could play, maybe I should consider it.

 

You like analogies so here's one, I have to draw on my elk tag. I not only have to draw, but I have to build up points before I can draw. This takes years sometimes, but it's worth the wait. This is a fare way for everyone to play. If some way I could endlessly monopolize the draw, or in the case of caching, endlessly monopolize an area, it wouldn't be fare would it?

 

I do see where this would be hard for some, but it does give chances for others to play too, don't you see?

[+Hobo2]

Hobo2,

 

Have you contacted the super-cache placer to see if he/she would archive one in a chosen spot so your grandson could place one there?

Hay, wow, what a great idea, thanks!

[+BlueDeuce]

But lets say an area is saturated by many cachers.

 

That's just what happens, people places caches in the available areas and given enough time the area gets saturated. Just like the time limit thread you can't/shouldn't force people to archive their caches or prevent them from placing X amount of caches. I'm not aware of any 'right' to place a cache simply because you showed up too late in the game.

Edited November 21, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[groundhog123]

I think I can understand your frustration. One person with 650 is just over the top, I could care less what anyone else writes otherwise. There are a few cachers in my area with quite a few hides (less than a hundred), but I will often not concern myself with rushing to their new hides. Most are park and grabs which take one to uninteresting spots and which I despise for the simple fact that there is no challenge to them. Still, I will hunt them when there is nothing else to do. I only have 2 hides myself and am trying to come up with something very difficult and at the same time interesting and rewarding. But I also do not think there should be a limit. Most responsible cachers know their limits and will not oversaturate an area. The town I live in has no caches, so there are many opportunities for new hides.

[+Kealia]

With all due respect, it sounds like you are suggesting a rule to solve a "problem" that might be specific to you. I see that your grandson wants to hide his own cache, but can't find a spot. I think it's great that he wants to participate in the game and I commend you for working with him to try and get a cache out there to give back - but we don't need a rule to make this possible.

 

Treat each cache on it's own. If you come across one of these other caches that needs maintenace or should be archived due to lack of maintenance, report it using the tools on the site.

 

While I agree that people should be sensitive enough to not "hog" an area, on the flipside they are giving back and providing a lot of fun for the locals. What if these people didn't exist? New cachers would have very few caches to find and possible quickly become discouraged because there weren't enough caches around. It's a double-edged sword.

 

In the end, it's hard to believe that there isn't anywhere to place a new cache. You really can't find an open spot that's 528 feet from another cache? I'm thinking that it's more likely that the best spots (favoriate lookouts, resting palces, etc.) are taken and that's the type of spot you are looking for.

 

Try working with him to find a spot that maybe isn't his first choice, but will work. Then do a cleverly cammo'd cache there and offer something different to the locals.

 

Good luck.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hey,

 

How about someone with 1500+ hides (sure, not all are active)??? Yep, I am from Minnesota (as one can see to the left...) and we have the most prolific cache placer I know of. Though, honesly, if it were not for said cacher, I really don't know if caching would be as widespread in Minnesota as it is now. He placed a lot of caches in the early years (and continues to place caches), I think he has done a lot for Geocaching in Minnesota. He may be from the St. Paul/Minneapolis area but has caches (many) outstate as well...especially in areas that may not have a cache except for his.

 

My thought, hide what you are comfortable with...

 

A thought on my cache hides...I have always been open with the cachers in my area...if they wish to "take over" a spot, I just ask they email me and give me the minimum three months. If they want to hide a cache and feel they can do better then mine (or use the area better), I say go ahead. You could always email the cacher in question and ask them how they would feel if you "replaced" one of their caches.

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

Edited November 21, 2007 by ArcherDragoon

[+Hobo2]

With all due respect, it sounds like you are suggesting a rule to solve a "problem" that might be specific to you. I see that your grandson wants to hide his own cache, but can't find a spot. I think it's great that he wants to participate in the game and I commend you for working with him to try and get a cache out there to give back - but we don't need a rule to make this possible.

 

Treat each cache on it's own. If you come across one of these other caches that needs maintenace or should be archived due to lack of maintenance, report it using the tools on the site.

 

While I agree that people should be sensitive enough to not "hog" an area, on the flipside they are giving back and providing a lot of fun for the locals. What if these people didn't exist? New cachers would have very few caches to find and possible quickly become discouraged because there weren't enough caches around. It's a double-edged sword.

 

In the end, it's hard to believe that there isn't anywhere to place a new cache. You really can't find an open spot that's 528 feet from another cache? I'm thinking that it's more likely that the best spots (favoriate lookouts, resting palces, etc.) are taken and that's the type of spot you are looking for.

 

Try working with him to find a spot that maybe isn't his first choice, but will work. Then do a cleverly cammo'd cache there and offer something different to the locals.

 

Good luck.

Thanks for the info, and your right this is only our problem for now, but I can see this becoming a problem for others as well.

 

It is good to contribute, and I do see the value of having people who like to hide... this keeps the game going. But even you have to admit, some urban areas are saturated now. So if I understand you correctly by leaving it open season on the amount of caches, that's it, no new caches for this area if it's full?

 

I do think it is inevitable for places to become overcrowded, unusable for other cachers to hide in. But the question is, should one cacher be allowed to hurry this possess by hogging an area?

Edited November 21, 2007 by Hobo2

[+BurbankKarl]

Are they all film cannisters?

 

The reason I’m saying this is because there is a cacher in my area (I wont say who out of respect), that has over 650 caches. It may be all well and good to own quite a few, but that many surly can cause a few down sides.

[+Kealia]

So if I understand you correctly by leaving it open season on the amount of caches, that's it, no new caches for this area if it's full?

Unfortunately, yes. Once an area has a cache, it has a cache. It doesn't really matter who the owner is.

 

I do think it is inevitable for places to become overcrowded, unusable for other cachers to hide in. But the question is, should one cacher be allowed to hurry this possess by hogging an area?

Should they be allowed to? Yes. It's a rule/constraint that we don't need.

SHOULD they (in general)? No. It comes down to common courtesy.

 

I would guess the situation is a self fulfilling prophecy, though. Nobody else hid caches out there, so this person did. That person continues to get finds on his caches and people saying "thanks for the cache", which is reinforcing his behavior - therefore he continues to place more caches.

 

Now, if folks ignored the caches and didn't find them - that would send a message but it's not likely to happen. Sorry, just waxing philosophical now.....

[rickctroop13]

"Are they all film cannisters?"

 

Saw an ad on GC for .99 Nanos. I foresee a cache on every Stop sign!

 

Did this person hide them en mass, or space out the hides?I've been going since April, enjoy placing caches, but try to place only one a month (on average). For my convenience I'm keeping them within a 10-15 mile radius so I can stop and check them frequently going to and from work... there are other hiders in my area with more caches & experience so I space mine out time wise so if they're drawn to an area by my cache and think it's a good area for one of their own, they have some time.

And that'll give me something to find (and learn from) on maintenance runs.

Edited November 21, 2007 by rickctroop13

[+briansnat]

The first downside I can think of, is what I alluded to above, there is no way all of these caches can remain, to any degree, quality caches, just because of the maintenance issue. I don’t care how much time you have on your hands, maintaining 650 caches is an impossibility for anyone… even if there micros.

 

I have 222 hides with nearly 200 of them active and have no problem maintaining them. I also work full time, coach and play soccer, work at an archaeological dig most Sundays, do volunteer trail work and have a number of other interests that I devote my time to.

 

So I can see someone who is retired and whose chief focus is geocaching being able to sufficiently maintain 650 or more caches.

 

Second and mostly, doesn’t placing so many caches limit others from placing one of there own? In some areas there just aren’t that many real good caching spots.

 

Not at all. If others are willing to do the research and legwork they can also find good places for their caches. I sincerely doubt that there is an area that doesn't have enough good cache spots to support the local cache hiders. What the area probably lacks are people with the imagination and willingness to research places for caches.

 

I live in one of the most densely cached states in the nation, but I'm constantly amazed by the awesome places my fellow geocachers come up with to hide their caches. I admit that with 200+ hides, sometimes I

run out of ideas for good spots, then I get my weekly cache notification and see 4 or 5 new caches in great places that I didn't know about or just didn't think of.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I’m sure this subject has come up, but I couldn’t find it. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great to have so many caches to choose from, I enjoy that. But isn’t variety from many cachers better than lots of caches by just one person? When does it become “against the rules” to have so many caches that you couldn’t possibly maintain them all? Just how many is too many, this is the question?

 

The reason I’m saying this is because there is a cacher in my area (I wont say who out of respect), that has over 650 caches. It may be all well and good to own quite a few, but that many surly can cause a few down sides.

 

The first downside I can think of, is what I alluded to above, there is no way all of these caches can remain, to any degree, quality caches, just because of the maintenance issue. I don’t care how much time you have on your hands, maintaining 650 caches is an impossibility for anyone… even if there micros.

 

Second and mostly, doesn’t placing so many caches limit others from placing one of there own? In some areas there just aren’t that many real good caching spots. In other words, doesn’t this action by just one cacher, by owning so many caches, force newbes out of the good spots for instance. Furthermore, how about having variety? If only one cacher is allowed to monopolize a whole area, is this as much fun, or fare, to the rest of us?

 

Isn’t it reasonable to set a limit as to the amount of caches any one person can place, if for no other reason than to keep the game fresh with new players? Once anyone places a cache, this makes it imposable for anyone to place a cache within 528’ of that cache. Moreover, if you think of that measurement in circumference, now you have a radius of over 1,000 feet off limits for anyone else, is this fare?

 

Snowfrog started a thread

(http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=178001), asking if we should archive caches after a curtain amount of time, to give others a chance at that spot. I don’t think this is the answer, for now, if there was a limit set as to the amount of caches one person can own. Otherwise, I think something like this is inevitable, just because it will become a saturation issue some day.

 

I think the situation you present is extremely unusual and that the rules currently in place eventually will cause some attrition to this number of active hides. If the person is able to maintain 650 caches today, I doubt they will be able to do it for long.

 

I consider hiding caches as "the give" and finding caches as "the take" of our game. The game survives on the balance of the two. It's very rare that people would want to do "that much" giving in anything. Especially, when you consider the reward for hiding most caches is a ton of email with a TFTC in it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Second and mostly, doesn’t placing so many caches limit others from placing one of there own? In some areas there just aren’t that many real good caching spots. In other words, doesn’t this action by just one cacher, by owning so many caches, force newbes out of the good spots for instance. Furthermore, how about having variety? If only one cacher is allowed to monopolize a whole area, is this as much fun, or fare fair, to the rest of us?

 

Oh, my goodness! Every single good hiding place nearby has a cache? Most cache hunters would love this!

Of course, what I'm hearing is sour grapes. Creativity! Searching for another good spot! Research!

I've seen some cachers who cannot maintain three caches, and others who can maintain 200. I live in a fairly cache dense area, and I've found a few good places to put caches. Some of the other cachers nearby continue to astound me with places they've found to hide caches. (Others continue to let me down. Oh, well.)

So, go find a nice spot of your own. They do exist. And enjoy hunting the other cache owner's caches.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

... Good Containers, and well chosen locations, prevents 99% of maintenance issues.

 

That says it right there.

[vagabond]

So the prolific cacher in question has been caching for almost 6 years, there are probably a lot of cachers in the area that are darn glad that he has taken the time to place all those caches.

[+WalruZ]

it's a self-limiting problem. just go out and cache and sooner or later the areas you're interested in will open up.

[+Hobo2]

You've all inspired me to try again. I just hope my Grandson will have the patience to look some more. I don't get to the city much, so maybe this is also an excuse to visit more... a quest if you will, I just hope he will see it that way.

 

I agree, it is, "or it should", be an ethical obligation to leave room for others, and not dominate a whole area. But alas, nothing is mentioned in the rules about ethical placement practices... maybe there should be?

[+mgoose]

No Limit !

 

I have around 100+ active hides. I have spent all weekend and drove over 350 miles just doing maintenance.

Most of them are in a close area. Has been call mgoose land. Have had cachers from all over the state come through. Have had one cacher complain that I had too many like you are talking about, his son wanted to place one. And it was to close to mine. So I offered to move it. I ask him to give me about two weeks to do so.

Would not be easy to move this one. Before I got it move he told me just to for get about it. Then I here from him again to many caches!! So I quit placing caches for a month or two in his area and he never place one.He was a new cacher and he finally place a cache. We work things out.

 

We are not cache hogs we just like to hide caches

[+paulandstacey]

I don't think a "he took my spot" or "he's got too many caches" code will ever be in place.

 

I understand your frustration, I just think it's better to enjoy what's out there. Would you feel different if the area was still saturated by 100 different cachers? You still couldn't hide any. What if they were all boring, lame or in poor condition?

 

If I was in a cache saturated area with mainly good, well maintained caches, I'd feel pretty lucky. Worrying about finding a spot to hide one of my own would be far down my list of concerns.

I think your missing the point here. You and me both like finding more than hiding, lets agree on that. But what about the beginner, there's the rub. If a place is saturated by one cacher, I do feel this is unfair, it means others cant hide. But lets say an area is saturated by many cachers, is this fare? This is where the other question of archiving old caches comes into play. I would be hurt to have my well maintained cache archived, but if it meant someone else could play, maybe I should consider it.

 

You like analogies so here's one, I have to draw on my elk tag. I not only have to draw, but I have to build up points before I can draw. This takes years sometimes, but it's worth the wait. This is a fare way for everyone to play. If some way I could endlessly monopolize the draw, or in the case of caching, endlessly monopolize an area, it wouldn't be fare would it?

 

I do see where this would be hard for some, but it does give chances for others to play too, don't you see?

 

I see why you're frustrated. I don't see how the situation of cache saturation is "unfair". Again, saturation is a natural result of a growing game. As long as they're maintained, it shouldn't matter who hides them. You're talking about a game that is 7 years old - how can it be expected that people "save" spots for cachers who may want to hide a cache in the future?

[rogheff]

If you propose to limit cachers from hiding too many caches (in your opinion), are you also proposing that ALL area cachers hide a minumum number of caches? That only seems fair.

Edited November 22, 2007 by rogheff

[+Rockin Roddy]

A HUGE NO to this limit. Why some want to limit the caches in an area is betond me. If you can't find an area to hide a cache in nearby, expand your area a bit.

 

THANKS to all that take the time to place hides for others to find!!

[+PT_Tex]

I don't like the limit, but you can be courteous to other cachers in the area and not do too many. I have 4 and I don’t want more then 10. We have somebody in my area that has 47 finds and 150 hides in a 100 mile radius of their home. Some are good and some are not. I email him about one that needs maintenance. It’s been 2 weeks and the cache has not been fixed. I think the area approver should close caches that are not maintained in a reasonable amount of time. If you can’t fix a problem in a month the cache should be closed of adopted.

[+Zop]

Just think how much E-Mail this person gets on weekends! - As for the numbers of caches placed by one person, I for one would begin by thanking him or her for the effort and for the caches. Have you tried communicating with the placer? Maybe a simple request to open an area for you to place a few for him/her to find could be the beginning of a fun relationship. 650 may seem like a high number but if a cache is well planned and is of good construction, why would the placer ever need to revisit except to replace a log? I found a cache just the other day (GCC9E3) that was placed in January of '03 that has never been maintained because it han't needed it! The log book isn't even full yet. I'll tell you, it sure was a kick to read back almost 5 years in the log!

 

I’m sure this subject has come up, but I couldn’t find it. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great to have so many caches to choose from, I enjoy that. But isn’t variety from many cachers better than lots of caches by just one person? When does it become “against the rules” to have so many caches that you couldn’t possibly maintain them all? Just how many is too many, this is the question?

 

The reason I’m saying this is because there is a cacher in my area (I wont say who out of respect), that has over 650 caches. It may be all well and good to own quite a few, but that many surly can cause a few down sides.

 

The first downside I can think of, is what I alluded to above, there is no way all of these caches can remain, to any degree, quality caches, just because of the maintenance issue. I don’t care how much time you have on your hands, maintaining 650 caches is an impossibility for anyone… even if there micros.

 

Second and mostly, doesn’t placing so many caches limit others from placing one of there own? In some areas there just aren’t that many real good caching spots. In other words, doesn’t this action by just one cacher, by owning so many caches, force newbes out of the good spots for instance. Furthermore, how about having variety? If only one cacher is allowed to monopolize a whole area, is this as much fun, or fare, to the rest of us?

 

Isn’t it reasonable to set a limit as to the amount of caches any one person can place, if for no other reason than to keep the game fresh with new players? Once anyone places a cache, this makes it imposable for anyone to place a cache within 528’ of that cache. Moreover, if you think of that measurement in circumference, now you have a radius of over 1,000 feet off limits for anyone else, is this fare?

 

Snowfrog started a thread

(http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=178001), asking if we should archive caches after a curtain amount of time, to give others a chance at that spot. I don’t think this is the answer, for now, if there was a limit set as to the amount of caches one person can own. Otherwise, I think something like this is inevitable, just because it will become a saturation issue some day.

[+Team Cotati]

Yes there should, however the number ought to be greater than 10,000. Depending of course upon the size of the hole.

[+OzGuff]

 

No.

[+briansnat]

You've all inspired me to try again. I just hope my Grandson will have the patience to look some more. I don't get to the city much, so maybe this is also an excuse to visit more... a quest if you will, I just hope he will see it that way.

 

I agree, it is, "or it should", be an ethical obligation to leave room for others, and not dominate a whole area. But alas, nothing is mentioned in the rules about ethical placement practices... maybe there should be?

 

I don't see an ethical issue at all. If someone enjoys placing caches let him. It's not like he went out one night and placed 600+ caches. They were likely placed over several years giving plenty of time for other geocachers to hide caches in those places. They chose not to.

[+dirtisgood]

I know who Hobo is talking about... and it's all about the numbers. Look at his profile and it's all he can talk about, how he's the first this or that. First with triple digit hides, finds, TBs, events, whatever. I thought of spoofing it like first to find a cache with a migraine headache, or first male to find a cache while wearing a wedding veil, etc.

 

Most of these hides are film canisters with torn paper logs, in uninteresting places like mileposts or lampposts. Some finds are also film canister replacements when he couldn't find the original, but that's just how he plays. Give him the numbers, let him brag.

 

For the most part, I've ignored these since I first figured it out. I'll still grab one now and then, but I don't specifically seek them. However, I do wish people would place caches with the knowledge that their placement isn't a small dot on a map, but a large (.2mile dia) circle.

 

To run through town on the side of the freeway stopping every .1 and tossing a film canister out the window is also a good way to blow some planning and researched cache placements. I have one I've been working on for a month now, waiting until the right time to submit it, because I want it done well, not quickly. I guess someone could come up and stick a bison tube in the brush while stepping on my well concealed container and submit that micro.

 

Maybe that's the chance I take, but I'll have to take it.

[+egami]

If the caches are truly in that condition I'd think it might be relatively easy to log maint/needs archiving on a number of them...

[CoyoteRed]

I, too, vote for no limit on the number of caches one person can own. I'd like to qualify that with "no hard limit." I wouldn't mind seeing a movement where folks are encouraged, maybe even expected, to voluntarily archive their more poorly received caches instead of simply letting them sit and hold a spot that might be better used by someone else.

 

Of course, there are some owners who delude themselves into thinking every hide of theirs is fantastic and is greatly appreciated by the community even though it couldn't be further from the truth. Still, those who can objectively judge their own caches and archive them would be numerous enough to cull a significant portion of the lesser quality caches that movement would be worthwhile.

 

I know. It's not very PC to have people judge and it would go over like a lead balloon.

Edited November 24, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[rogheff]

Here's a really good example of my take on this as a cache hider:

 

There are two newbies in my area who live near parks. Both have mentioned several times over the past year, how they'd like to place a cache in the parks near their homes. I've offered to help both as this would be a first time placement for both.

 

I have held off placing caches in those parks out of respect for these newbies. Neither park has a cache to this day - it's been over a year. How long should I wait?

 

If someone has a specific spot, I won't take it. If someone wants me to archive a cache of mine to make room for theirs, all they need do is ask.

 

But otherwise why should I stop geocaching the way I like to geocache?

Edited November 24, 2007 by rogheff

[+barondriver]

CACHE RESPONSIBLY - HIDE RESPONSIBLY

 

As a hider of 235 caches..my feelings are:

 

Although I am not for a cap..I have always tried to consider other geocachers. My rule has always been to never hide more than one or two a month. I started geocaching in August of 2001. I traveled alot on my job so I tried to hide most of my geocaches away from my local area but where I could still maintain them. This would allow other local geocachers an opportunity to hide theirs..and give me something to go and find and expand the sport in areas where there were no caches and place caches where traveling geocachers would have geocaches to go'n find. The sport in western Kansas where I hid most of mine has expanded now and there are local geocachers in those areas that are hiding geocaches and now since my heart surgery..I don't travel as much out there..I have geocachers who are willing to maintain or take over my geocaches. I think that half of the fun is watching the logs of other geocachers who find yours. The caches that I place locally, I spend time planning. I understand that there are alot of "numbers" geocachers but do you really enjoy finding that 35mm film cartridge in the tree crotch? I feel that the growth of the sport depends on giving new geocachers an opportunity to do the whole sport..hiding as well as finding...just consider when hiding a cache..am I making the sport better?? now and later...will I keep hiding them?? yep..

 

well..that's my two-cents..