Where is the most densley cache area?

[+brianandcarmen]

I tried doing a search in the forums but didnt find this topic.

 

Im curious to know what the most densley cache population is there? and where is it?

[+kraushad]

Hello.

 

Perhaps the reason no one has responded (and I almost didn't) was that we aren't sure what you are refering to... do you mean what area of the country has the most caches, or just a general area like "city" vs. "country" -- or what?

 

Also, do you mean the most densely populated caches? or people who hunt them?? etc... more info will likely encourage others to respond.

[+sbell111]

I'm pretty sure that it's somewhere in the pacific northwet or SoCal.

[+Miragee]

It is my understanding the Palm Springs area is very cache-rich. There are other areas where people have traveled to in order to do a "cache run." Seems like one of those was somewhere in Florida.

[+Team Cotati]

I'm not exactly sure though I do understand that at one time it was New Jersey. Perhaps that is still true.

[+JohnnyVegas]

how large of an area

With in 100 miles of Sacramento ca there are just over 16,000

[+brianandcarmen]

ya, sorry i was a little unclear.

 

I was meaning where have people found the most cache-rich areas?

 

For example= In a 5 mile radius whats the most caches your ever seen?

 

I ask because when i look in my area of tampabay/st petersburg FL it seems that there are TONS in my area. Just was curious if there are even better areas to go and attempt a crazy one day, 100 cache run...(ya right)

[Mushtang]

KBI is awfully dense, and he lives in a suburb of Atlanta.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If you live in Tampa St Pete, then the 100 cache run place for you is (oddly) Lakeland. The overall density is probably less, but the ease of just running along the road and finding cache after cache after cache is much greater.

Take a look at Lakeland, think of going north on U.S 98 starting south of the Polk Parkway, ONLY doing the caches on the right (east) side of the road, north north north, finally to a turn on Rock Ridge road and finish off with the Easy Series. If you've never cached the area before, 100 easily. And if you got a super early start on a Sunday morning, I think you could do that in 8 hours or so.

[+briansnat]

I'm not exactly sure though I do understand that at one time it was New Jersey. Perhaps that is still true.

 

No we were left in the dust long ago. As far as cache density, Massachusetts passed us by, and I think CT as well.

[+Chuy!]

We played a similar game once; don't recall who won.

 

You can use GC to find caches by ZIP codes; it will list all caches within 50 miles of the geocentric midpoint for that ZIP code. 90706 has 10064 caches, or 201.28 caches per square mile.

[+TrailGators]

We played a similar game once; don't recall who won.

 

You can use GC to find caches by ZIP codes; it will list all caches within 50 miles of the geocentric midpoint for that ZIP code. 90706 has 10064 caches, or 201.28 caches per square mile.

That area must have a ton of people with really good breath! (Altoids)

[+anakerose]

Greater Vancouver in British Columbia is pretty populated with caches. Calgary, Alberta area has a LOT.

[+Bad_CRC]

beat this...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.a...;zm=14&mt=m

 

[+TrailGators]

beat this...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.a...;zm=14&mt=m

 

OK! (zoom out two clicks) Edited January 29, 2008 by TrailGators

[+wandering4cache]

how large of an area

With in 100 miles of Sacramento ca there are just over 16,000

16,000?

Oh man, we are going to need alot longer than 2 weeks there then.

[+StarBrand]

There are 14 with 5 miles of my house. 10 of them are mine.

[+wimseyguy]

I'm not exactly sure though I do understand that at one time it was New Jersey. Perhaps that is still true.

 

No we were left in the dust long ago. As far as cache density, Massachusetts passed us by, and I think CT as well.

But I think you still have the densest cachers in NJ.

[+Bad_CRC]

OK! (zoom out two clicks)

 

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm not exactly sure though I do understand that at one time it was New Jersey. Perhaps that is still true.

 

No we were left in the dust long ago. As far as cache density, Massachusetts passed us by, and I think CT as well.

But I think you still have the densest cachers in NJ.

 

I remember Buxley's maps (back in the ol' days when it listed geocaching.com caches) used to have a chart, and Joisey was always on top, as far as caches per square mile. I have no clue where you'd get data like that these days.

[Neos2]

beat this...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.a...;zm=14&mt=m

 

OK, not a particularly dense part of town, but it is at the same 2000 ft level you posted (out 1 click).

 

It stacks up pretty well to TrailGators example too, having 158 to their 130 if you go out to the 1-mile area (2 clicks)

Edited January 29, 2008 by Neos2

[+briansnat]

I'm not exactly sure though I do understand that at one time it was New Jersey. Perhaps that is still true.

 

No we were left in the dust long ago. As far as cache density, Massachusetts passed us by, and I think CT as well.

But I think you still have the densest cachers in NJ.

 

I remember Buxley's maps (back in the ol' days when it listed geocaching.com caches) used to have a chart, and Joisey was always on top, as far as caches per square mile. I have no clue where you'd get data like that these days.

 

Somebody would have to sit there and figure everything out. I'm sure someone here has the time. If there is a rainy day I may give it a shot.

[+TrailGators]

beat this...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.a...;zm=14&mt=m

 

OK, not a particularly dense part of town, but it is at the same 2000 ft level you posted (out 1 click).

 

It stacks up pretty well to TrailGators example too, having 158 to their 130 if you go out to the 1-mile area (2 clicks)

I'll see your 158 and raise you 108!

If you go a little south of that park I just showed you'll hit La Mesa and at the 1 mile zoom (2 clicks) there are 264 caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm not exactly sure though I do understand that at one time it was New Jersey. Perhaps that is still true.

 

No we were left in the dust long ago. As far as cache density, Massachusetts passed us by, and I think CT as well.

But I think you still have the densest cachers in NJ.

 

I remember Buxley's maps (back in the ol' days when it listed geocaching.com caches) used to have a chart, and Joisey was always on top, as far as caches per square mile. I have no clue where you'd get data like that these days.

 

Somebody would have to sit there and figure everything out. I'm sure someone here has the time. If there is a rainy day I may give it a shot.

 

The Buxley cache density chart was a couple of clicks into the website, and so not indexed very often on the wayback machine internet archive. There is a snapshot of December 2005, shortly before geocaching.com caches were removed from the maps forever, showing N.J. No. 2 to Massachusetts (ingoring D.C.)

 

Cache Density in the U.S. December 2005

 

I don't know, I'd find this interesting by State. Is it raining in N.J. today?

[+The Leprechauns]

Here are the top 20 US States for cache density, as of earlier today. Area figures are in square miles.

 

STATE	CACHES	AREA	DENSITY
DC	88	68	1.288433382
RI	702	1,214	0.578253707
CT	2917	5,543	0.526249323
NJ	3959	8,721	0.453961702
MA	4255	10,555	0.40312648
DE	893	2,489	0.358778626
NH	2915	9,350	0.311764706
CA	47072	163,696	0.287557424
MD	3096	12,407	0.249536552
PA	10340	46,055	0.224514168
OH	10046	44,825	0.224116007
IN	8159	36,418	0.224037564
FL	14417	65,755	0.219253289
NC	10630	53,819	0.197513889
TN	8276	42,143	0.196378995
NY	10054	54,556	0.184287704
WA	11546	71,300	0.161935484
VA	6174	42,774	0.14434002
VT	1280	9,614	0.133139172
IL	7141	57,914	0.123303519

[Neos2]

beat this...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.a...;zm=14&mt=m

 

OK, not a particularly dense part of town, but it is at the same 2000 ft level you posted (out 1 click).

 

It stacks up pretty well to TrailGators example too, having 158 to their 130 if you go out to the 1-mile area (2 clicks)

I'll see your 158 and raise you 108!

If you go a little south of that park I just showed you'll hit La Mesa and at the 1 mile zoom (2 clicks) there are 264 caches.

Wow, I'm not even going to look in my area for a density like that. If it is here, I'll find it eventually anyway.

 

Right now, I'm more interested in the density in your area. If I come out your way to try to find some of those caches, how many days can I borrow your shower once a day and a corner of your living room to crash between caching excursions?

[Neos2]

Here are the top 20 US States for cache density, as of earlier today. Area figures are in square miles.

DC: 88 CACHES/ 68 square miles; density = 1.288433382

Good to know. We are paying rent on a cute little place near DC and thought we'd go see what it looks like soon I mean, our daughter has an apartment just outside DC and we plan to visit her soon.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Neos2

[+joranda]

Cache density in the Moline area is heavy.

[Mr.Yuck]

Here are the top 20 US States for cache density, as of earlier today. Area figures are in square miles.

 

 

That was awesome, Lep! Not the cache density, the little codebox thing in the body of the post.

 

So, discounting D.C., Rhode Island is no. 1, eh? And it's no surprise small in area, but highly populated states are up near the top.

[+sbell111]

Here are the top 20 US States for cache density, as of earlier today. Area figures are in square miles.

That was awesome, Lep! Not the cache density, the little codebox thing in the body of the post.

 

So, discounting D.C., Rhode Island is no. 1, eh? And it's no surprise small in area, but highly populated states are up near the top.

I also was impressed with the codebox dohickey.

 

However, I think that the state list doesn't really tell the whole story. For instance, if I lived in Northern California, it wouldn't matter to me how dense the people caches in Southern California are.

 

If you look at caches within 20 miles of a specific ZIP, however, I think you get a good general idea of how dense a specific area is.

 

Within 20 miles of 37064, there are 524 caches.

Edited January 30, 2008 by sbell111

[+KJcachers]

I was thinking DC as well. I wonder if DC has the most Virtuals per square mile as well! Take a look...

 

DC caches

 

If you zoom out a few times you can see that Arlington/Alexandria are heavy with caches as well.

Edited January 30, 2008 by KJcachers

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I am no database guy, but it would seem to me that Groundspeak could run a list of all US zip codes out to say a 20-mile radius against the database and get a picture of density at least in the US.

 

I can't imagine what would motivate them to do this, but I suppose it could be done!

[+dew cache]

Okay how do I limit the search to 20 miles when I type in a zip code I get 50 miles? I typed in my zip code 75077 Lewisville TX and found 6068 caches within 50 miles, when I moved in closer to Dallas 75234 Carrollton it get 6133 caches within 50 miles.

[+sbell111]

Okay how do I limit the search to 20 miles when I type in a zip code I get 50 miles? I typed in my zip code 75077 Lewisville TX and found 6068 caches within 50 miles, when I moved in closer to Dallas 75234 Carrollton it get 6133 caches within 50 miles.

Each page shows 20 caches. Just find the page that has the first cache over twenty miles. Multiply the number of full pages by twenty and add the few within 20 miles from the last page.

 

PQs would work, also, but for very dense areas, you would have to build multiple PQs and that begins to get to be work.

Edited January 30, 2008 by sbell111

[+geognerd]

We played a similar game once; don't recall who won.

 

You can use GC to find caches by ZIP codes; it will list all caches within 50 miles of the geocentric midpoint for that ZIP code. 90706 has 10064 caches, or 201.28 caches per square mile.

How can an area have more than 100 caches per square mile? With the 528ft rule, the best you could do is a 10x10 grid, or 100 caches. In your example, there are 10064 caches within 50mi of the centroid for the 90706 ZIP code. So pi*(50mi^2) would give us ~7854 square miles. Dividing 10064 caches by 7854 square miles gives me only 1.16 caches per square mile. Am I missing something?

 

Oh, I see. Just did some more math. I was assuming Chuy's cache count is based on a 50-mile radius from the center of the ZIP code, whereas Chuy is assuming the cache count is for a 50-square mile box centered at the centroid of the ZIP code. But I still don't see how it is possible to go over 100 caches per square mile.

[+sbell111]

Math. Ugh.

[+sbell111]

Someone once prepared a cool graphic explaining why you can have more than 100 caches in a square mile. As I recall, it had to do with the fact that they can be packed in triangles, instead of squares.

 

I'm describing it poorly, but imagine stacking ping pong dirty, old golf balls. To fit the most in the box, you wouldn't place them all in rows of ten, you would stagger the rows so the balls fit together tighter.

 

Edited to add cite the post I was thinking of:

Here is a new illustration showing 128 caches within 1 square mile.

 

(Of course, 200 caches per square mile is totally impossible.) Edited January 31, 2008 by sbell111

[+dew cache]

We played a similar game once; don't recall who won.

 

You can use GC to find caches by ZIP codes; it will list all caches within 50 miles of the geocentric midpoint for that ZIP code. 90706 has 10064 caches, or 201.28 caches per square mile.

How can an area have more than 100 caches per square mile? With the 528ft rule, the best you could do is a 10x10 grid, or 100 caches. In your example, there are 10064 caches within 50mi of the centroid for the 90706 ZIP code. So pi*(50mi^2) would give us ~7854 square miles. Dividing 10064 caches by 7854 square miles gives me only 1.16 caches per square mile. Am I missing something?

 

Oh, I see. Just did some more math. I was assuming Chuy's cache count is based on a 50-mile radius from the center of the ZIP code, whereas Chuy is assuming the cache count is for a 50-square mile box centered at the centroid of the ZIP code. But I still don't see how it is possible to go over 100 caches per square mile.

 

Even taking your 100 per square mile x 7854 square miles is 785400 posible in a 50 miles raduis.

[+9Key]

I wish a mod would fix the spelling error in the topic name.

[+Clothahump]

Probably Houston, TX.

 

This is about a 4 mile radius of my home coords. 331 caches, and this is not the densest area of town.