Changing the cache density rule?

[+NHsummitseakersx3]

What does everyone think of changing the density rule with Gas going over $4 a gallon?

 

I am in favor of dropping it to say 400 feet to allow more caches to be placed in smaller parks.

 

I know now I seek out areas with good density before setting out as I just can't afford to go on 50 mile FTF runs anymore. I would love to see more "power trails" so I can still get some numbers.

 

If gas continues to rise like it is sure to do I see myself doing less and less caching and spending way more time at home. At least lowering the density rule would let me spend more time in the same area before moving on.

[+baloo&bd]

What does everyone think of changing the density rule with Gas going over $4 a gallon?

 

I am in favor of dropping it to say 400 feet to allow more caches to be placed in smaller parks.

 

I know now I seek out areas with good density before setting out as I just can't afford to go on 50 mile FTF runs anymore. I would love to see more "power trails" so I can still get some numbers.

 

If gas continues to rise like it is sure to do I see myself doing less and less caching and spending way more time at home. At least lowering the density rule would let me spend more time in the same area before moving on.

 

Haven't found too many places so saturated that this would be necessary. Using the argument about getting "some numbers" probably won't get you too far since it is contrary to GS philosophy.

[Fakk 2]

For me, Its not about the numbers its about the location. I have 2 caches that are less than .5 miles from my front dooor and I haven't visited either. mainly because I am not interested in ##'s. Caching use to be about finding the unusual sites or unkown things in a city/country that not many knew about. To share with others. Not really sure when this game turned into a numbers race there is no finish line so having 100 or 1000 or 10000 finds doesn't get you anything more than the person that has 10 or 20.

 

Revisit some of the locations that you enjoyed, read through the logs of people that visited after you. (Atleast around here there are a few cahches that has more than just signatures.)

[+butrflybec]

Using the argument about getting "some numbers" probably won't get you too far since it is contrary to GS philosophy.

 

Yeah I'm okay with going to a decent area and only finding one cache. I'd rather just spend time enjoying the area than search out another cache 400 feet away. If they decreased the distance requirement, I think it would over populate some areas with monotonous caches...and if we are talking about in a park, it would increase the effect we have on the plant life in the area.

 

I think the current distance guideline is pretty good...but that's just my opinion.

[+Metaphor]

[+Totem Clan]

If it's changed it all, I say make 0.25 miles.

 

 

I want quality not quantity.

[+Renegade Knight]

For me, Its not about the numbers its about the location....

 

For most cachers it's about the cache. Though a lot of people say "it's about the location" most of those didn't get off the couch to find the locations without the cache being there.

 

Most off of us have a "yet another cool spot I didn't know about story" that had we been explorers we would have found a long time ago. OTOH location is a great reason to choose one cache over another and a great reasont to leave a lot of urban caches unfound.

 

That all said if every worthy location had a cache regardless of distance that would be a great spin on the distance rule.

[+XopherN71]

Who says that just because you can place them closer together means that they will be worse?

[+admo1972]

[+XopherN71]

 

Not bad, but they are ALL MICROS! I bet they have good swag in them though.

Edited April 24, 2008 by XopherN71

[+butrflybec]

 

That all said if every worthy location had a cache regardless of distance that would be a great spin on the distance rule.

 

Yeah that sounds like a good idea.... but then who would be the judge of what's worthy. Let me play devil's advocate....You'd have some hiders argue saying "how can one live without the Wal-mart?! It's an icon in today's society! Ofcourse the light pole in the parking lot is worthy of a cache even though I placed another one on light pole #4...I also think lightpole #32 should have one too because it's in front of the food center, while the other is infront of the home and garden area, which is a completely different part of the store!"

 

Ha! I really hope someone wouldn't argue that, but I'm just sayin'....

[+XopherN71]

Ha! I really hope someone wouldn't argue that, but I'm just sayin'.... laughing.gif

 

Oh, I'm sure someone would.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Who says that just because you can place them closer together means that they will be worse?

 

No, he means that they will offer the same experience. What you are making is a numbers suggestion. There's always going to be some folks that are not going to support something like that.

 

The way to battle the high fuel costs is to learn how to use GSAK and improve your planning and filtering skills.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+briansnat]

Though a lot of people say "it's about the location" most of those didn't get off the couch to find the locations without the cache being there.

 

Probably because we didn't know about it until someone put a cache there.

 

As to the OP's idea, I'm all for keeping the density the way it is. I really don't see what gas prices has to do with it.

[+StarBrand]

Since gas was $6 or $7 or more per gallon in many places around the world, I don't see how it reaching $4 here should tip the balance.

 

I don't see any correlation between gas prices and the reasons for a density rule guideline.

[+tozainamboku]

If gas continues to rise like it is sure to do I see myself doing less and less caching and spending way more time at home. At least lowering the density rule would let me spend more time in the same area before moving on.

I think this is a good idea. I have a couple of more suggestions on ways for geocachers and Geocaching.com to survive high gas prices:

 

1. Change the cache permanence rule. Instead of requiring caches to be in place for at least three months, require them to archived after three months and allow caches that are in place for as short as one day. That way by the time I find all the cache that are nearby there will be a whole new set of caches placed in that area so I'll never run out of nearby caches.

 

2. Bring back virtual caches - or at least armchair virtual caches. Allow people to post the coordinates of a statue or historic marker and allow me to log a find if I can find the answer on the internet. Also let me log a find for solving puzzle caches.

[+butrflybec]

 

1. Change the cache permanence rule. Instead of requiring caches to be in place for at least three months, require them to archived after three months and allow caches that are in place for as short as one day. That way by the time I find all the cache that are nearby there will be a whole new set of caches placed in that area so I'll never run out of nearby caches.

 

2. Bring back virtual caches - or at least armchair virtual caches. Allow people to post the coordinates of a statue or historic marker and allow me to log a find if I can find the answer on the internet. Also let me log a find for solving puzzle caches.

 

Please tell me you are being sarcastic here....

 

I really, really, really hope so...

Edited April 24, 2008 by butrflybec

[+ArcherDragoon]

Since gas was $6 or $7 or more per gallon in many places around the world, I don't see how it reaching $4 here should tip the balance.

 

I don't see any correlation between gas prices and the reasons for a density rule guideline.

I was thinking the same thing...$4 a gallon is nothing when you look at what the prices are outside of the U.S.

.

.

.

Besides...just means we have to plan more when traveling...and have more fun by caching with friends and splitting the bill!!!

[+TotemLake]

What does everyone think of changing the density rule with Gas going over $4 a gallon?

 

I am in favor of dropping it to say 400 feet to allow more caches to be placed in smaller parks.

 

I know now I seek out areas with good density before setting out as I just can't afford to go on 50 mile FTF runs anymore. I would love to see more "power trails" so I can still get some numbers.

 

If gas continues to rise like it is sure to do I see myself doing less and less caching and spending way more time at home. At least lowering the density rule would let me spend more time in the same area before moving on.

I agree the density should be changed, from .1 to .25.

 

In all reality, be more selective in the caches you look for. This will increase the quality of your time versus trying to find every single cache out there with varying degrees of (dis)satisfaction.

[+Taoiseach]

I would love to see this happen - Actually 396 feet is 0.075 of a Mile

 

There are several good hiding spots in downtown Ottawa that can't be, and if the saturation halo was reduced, it could very easily open up several of these places

 

But as for the price of gas - My drink of choice while caching is usually Ginger Ale - I tend to keep away from the petroleum products, they tend to give me heartburn

Edited April 24, 2008 by Taoiseach

[+wimseyguy]

I wonder if the OP would also be in favor of eliminating all caches published inside the 528' mark should gas ever drop below $3.00/gallon?

 

Nah-I didn't think so.

 

There are plenty of places to hide lots of good caches that are at least .1 mile apart. I suspect a less densely developed state like NH will have even more available locations than more densely developed metropolitan areas will.

Edited April 24, 2008 by wimseyguy

[+Mule Ears]

With the average waist size approaching 40, perhaps the hiking distance between caches should be increased, and a minimum distance from pavement instituted.

[+Lotho]

You are complaining over $4 a gallon. Prices in the UK are at around $11 per gallon...maybe you should rethink your rank.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Lotho

[+nekom]

It should be done away with altogether, and virtual caches brought back. That way, we could have a virtual at every intersection! Just imagine how many precious smileys we'd all be able to rack up!

[+gof1]

Revisit some of the locations that you enjoyed, read through the logs of people that visited after you.

 

Now THAT is the way to play this game.(searches in vain for the thumbs up emoticon)

 

Drives me nuts when I'm caching with others (rare) and they won't take time to look through what people have written in the log. Take the time to write in the log book of a cache you enjoyed finding. Some of us who find it later enjoy reading your thoughts.

 

Sorry, back to the topic at hand. So far I haven't had to give up my caching because of the gas prices. We don't eat out as often, even while out caching. One night out costs as much as the fuel for a days caching. We also don't drive from park-n-grab to park-n-grab. Instead we go to an area we'd like to hike in and spend a while. Of course we miss all those great parking lot vistas.

[+gof1]

With the average waist size approaching 40, perhaps the hiking distance between caches should be increased, and a minimum distance from pavement instituted.

 

HEY!! I resemble that remark!

[+Renegade Knight]

 

That all said if every worthy location had a cache regardless of distance that would be a great spin on the distance rule.

 

Yeah that sounds like a good idea.... but then who would be the judge of what's worthy....

 

That's the crux. I've listed two caches on other sites because I found better spots than the distance rule would allow. My judgment in that case.

 

Oh and Light pole #32 was clearly a historic treasure well worth a cache because nobody should miss that type of light pole craftsmanship.

[+brokenoaks]

Quality versus quantity is what these types of discussions are usually about. Whatever your preference the tools are readily available to fulfill either without changing the density of caches. I have just became a Premium member and have also started to use GSAK and can see that I can easily set up a pocket query that will show a rout with a good number of caches in a given confined area or refine my search to that one or two caches that have all the qualities I desire. I don’t do change well, especially when what is in place works just fine.

Edited April 24, 2008 by brokenoaks

[+Glenn]

While we are at it why don't we make the cache count a self reporting field. We can skip all the actually having to log caches and just put whatever number makes us the happiest in the number of caches found field.

[CoyoteRed]

Why is it called "density guideline" when the guideline doesn't mention "area?" Shouldn't it be called "proximity guideline?"

 

Personally, I think if there is a change it should be to a truer measure of density and not proximity. There are many worthy spots that are close together but are blocked because it is "too close" to another cache--thus the exception rule to the proximity guideline. If a hard barrier separates two spots then the exception comes into play at the discretion of the reviewer.

 

I believe being "fundamentally" different should be good enough with attention to poaching of a site. A hunt that is essentially the same as one already there is a bad idea. One that is fundamentally different should be okay. We encourage archiving a cache and placing a new one if the hunt is changed enough. Why can't two "different enough" caches exist in the same area?

 

Now, considering the proximity rule will actually allow somewhere in the neighborhood of 112 caches per square mile and I know of no place that even remotely approaches that density, why couldn't the proximity rule be relaxed and tighten up on the density. This would allow more caches in the smaller parks without going over board. To just throw a number out: no more than 5 caches within .25 miles in dense urban areas, no closer than 500' unless fundamentally different. "Fundamentally different" means significantly different size, camo, on ground versus a tree climb, difficulty, etc. Suburban and rural areas have different standards, possibly a simple proximity rule at .25 miles or greater. The point is a one size fits all guideline simply doesn't work without the exceptions mentioned earlier.

[+Lil Devil]

I'm also for increasing the density guideline from 0.1 mile to 0.25 mile or even 0.5 mile. Quality over quantity.

 

This is coming from someone who has found over 7,000 caches. Interestingly, only a few times have I found any series of caches that were spaced 0.1 mile apart. All my biggest days of caching involved driving a hundred miles or more all over town(s) picking up caches thousands of feet apart.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Why is it called "density guideline" when the guideline doesn't mention "area?" Shouldn't it be called "proximity guideline?

 

Actually it's named Cache Saturation.

 

Another vote for a change in the .2 to .25 direction, if any change were to be made at all. And I don't seriously expect any change.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Isonzo Karst

[+Marcas_Found]

WRT to gas prices: I really don't care. Depending on the cache location, it costs me either 15.9 mpg or 18 mpg to get to it. the time I get out of the house and in the woods with the kids and wife is worth it. After the initial investment, its not a terribly expensive sport. I bought a "beater" jeep for the woods and have still spent more money in mountain biking and paintballing.

 

WRT to cache distance: It's a split decision. If there are 2 places/events/etc within .1 miles of each other then shouldn't both be fun to see? I would put that issue as a variable that the admin can accept or deny depending on whether you cache is worthy enough. If its a cache just for the numbers race, I'm not interested. I do track numbers because we made a rule to ourselves that we would only hide a cache every 100 caches. The idea was to celebrate our achievment and to make sure we placed better and better caches as we went along.

[+Taoiseach]

Why is it called "density guideline" when the guideline doesn't mention "area?" Shouldn't it be called "proximity guideline?

 

Actually it's named Cache Saturation.

 

Another vote for a change in the .2 to .25 direction, if any change were to be made at all. And I don't seriously expect any change.

 

Increasing the saturation distance would hurt urban caching, especially around here IMO

 

Truth be told, I'm quite happy with 528 feet

Edited April 25, 2008 by Taoiseach

[+BlueDeuce]

What does everyone think of changing the density rule with Gas going over $4 a gallon?

 

I am in favor of dropping it to say 400 feet to allow more caches to be placed in smaller parks.

 

I know now I seek out areas with good density before setting out as I just can't afford to go on 50 mile FTF runs anymore. I would love to see more "power trails" so I can still get some numbers.

 

If gas continues to rise like it is sure to do I see myself doing less and less caching and spending way more time at home. At least lowering the density rule would let me spend more time in the same area before moving on.

 

All I hear is - make it easier to have access to more caches, regardless.

 

It's never about the cache placement or location.

[+TrailGators]

I'm also for increasing the density guideline from 0.1 mile to 0.25 mile or even 0.5 mile. Quality over quantity.

 

This is coming from someone who has found over 7,000 caches. Interestingly, only a few times have I found any series of caches that were spaced 0.1 mile apart. All my biggest days of caching involved driving a hundred miles or more all over town(s) picking up caches thousands of feet apart.

I'm in this camp!

[+rhelt100]

You are complaining over $4 a gallon. Prices in the UK are at around $11 per gallon...maybe you should rethink your rank.

 

 

You can't really compare it dollars for dollars. Imagine it this way. Take your current gas price and triple it in just a few years and you'll understand why were hurting. I've gone to caching in groups to share the gas fee as others have stated. It hurts a lot less to go through $40 of gas when the people with you throw you $30 back at the end of the day. It's more fun caching with friends anyways

[+TrailGators]

You are complaining over $4 a gallon. Prices in the UK are at around $11 per gallon...maybe you should rethink your rank.

You can't really compare it dollars for dollars. Imagine it this way. Take your current gas price and triple it in just a few years and you'll understand why were hurting. I've gone to caching in groups to share the gas fee as others have stated. It hurts a lot less to go through $40 of gas when the people with you throw you $30 back at the end of the day. It's more fun caching with friends anyways

 

All you have to do is cache half as much for caches that are twice as fun!

[+The Jester]

I'm also for increasing the density guideline from 0.1 mile to 0.25 mile or even 0.5 mile. Quality over quantity.

 

This is coming from someone who has found over 7,000 caches. Interestingly, only a few times have I found any series of caches that were spaced 0.1 mile apart. All my biggest days of caching involved driving a hundred miles or more all over town(s) picking up caches thousands of feet apart.

I'm in this camp!

??? How would putting caches farther apart improve the quality of each cache? Wouldn't there be more complaints about "lame" caches taking away "good" spots as the radius increase means about 7 times more area not available for a cache?

[+TrailGators]

I'm also for increasing the density guideline from 0.1 mile to 0.25 mile or even 0.5 mile. Quality over quantity.

 

This is coming from someone who has found over 7,000 caches. Interestingly, only a few times have I found any series of caches that were spaced 0.1 mile apart. All my biggest days of caching involved driving a hundred miles or more all over town(s) picking up caches thousands of feet apart.

I'm in this camp!

??? How would putting caches farther apart improve the quality of each cache? Wouldn't there be more complaints about "lame" caches taking away "good" spots as the radius increase means about 7 times more area not available for a cache?

I think it's more of the reverse of that. Closer means more numbers type caches.

[+TotemLake]

I'm also for increasing the density guideline from 0.1 mile to 0.25 mile or even 0.5 mile. Quality over quantity.

 

This is coming from someone who has found over 7,000 caches. Interestingly, only a few times have I found any series of caches that were spaced 0.1 mile apart. All my biggest days of caching involved driving a hundred miles or more all over town(s) picking up caches thousands of feet apart.

I'm in this camp!

??? How would putting caches farther apart improve the quality of each cache? Wouldn't there be more complaints about "lame" caches taking away "good" spots as the radius increase means about 7 times more area not available for a cache?

My comment, although funnily drew votes for it, was merely to show how ridiculous it is to complain about not enough caches in an area. You and I are surrounded by thousands of them and yet some folks have a difficult time looking past the same park and want to load it down with yet even more caches.

 

I say quit complaining about the guideline and get creative. I'd rather have quality over quantity any day.

[+TotemLake]

You are complaining over $4 a gallon. Prices in the UK are at around $11 per gallon...maybe you should rethink your rank.

 

 

You can't really compare it dollars for dollars. Imagine it this way. Take your current gas price and triple it in just a few years and you'll understand why were hurting. I've gone to caching in groups to share the gas fee as others have stated. It hurts a lot less to go through $40 of gas when the people with you throw you $30 back at the end of the day. It's more fun caching with friends anyways

Actually, they can. When our gas was less than a buck, they were paying close to 5. You forget the entire world is affected by the price increases, not just the USA.

[+korimako]

numbers schmumbers. Is there a way to seek out these quality caches? Maybe some sort of scenic quality ranking (ala feedback?) could allow both higher density and the rest of us to find those new gems in the hills. I do think of caching as a non-green outdoor activity, for many folks. Let folks cruise around town on their bikes or walking and find as many micros as they like, just give me a way to filter them out of the searches.

 

I don't follow the forums here much, Yes, I seek out the 'wow I never knew those petroglyphs were there even though I've driven by umpteen times' places. Has there ever been any discussion about distinguishing caches based on some sort of 'uniqueness' score? Lists are ok, but not very practical.

[+TeamGumbo]

I say leave it as it is.

 

While it has stopped me from one cache placement (two city parks that are very close together), I don't think making it less restrictive will necessarily mean better caches.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm in agreement with the comments about the distance between caches not affecting the quality of the cache placement. Folks who do place cache without much thought in the first place wouldn't have the first thought in their head about "oh, I have limited space so I'd better make it a good one."

 

Back when I first started caching there were few caches in places where you'll find some caches today. Few were micros and when they were they were smaller because the area simply wouldn't support a larger cache. Today, micros are tossed out where a larger could easily be hidden or they are in places where you simply wouldn't want to be otherwise.

 

It will take something else other than a change in the proximity rule to change the trend. It wouldn't be easy or without massive doses of angst.

[+joranda]

If it's changed it all, I say make 0.25 miles.

 

 

I want quality not quantity.

 

 

That is all on the cache hider. They could be one top of each other and still be a quality cache.

[+Totem Clan]

If it's changed it all, I say make 0.25 miles.

 

 

I want quality not quantity.

 

 

That is all on the cache hider. They could be one top of each other and still be a quality cache.

Yeah, I know. It's just seemed to me that the OP was saying "More numbers, more numbers, more numbers!" Even here in the least cache dense area in all of the US, the last thing we need is more numbers at the cost of quality.

I'm not saying that every caches has to be a "Wow" cache, but they don't have to all be the same cache repeated adnauseam just because I can. Lowering the saturation guideline will bring about more cookie cutter cache than it will original caches.

 

In truth, I say leave it alone. It's fine now.

[+TrailGators]

If anything having a cache hidden every 528' is much closer than most park rangers would like. So even the current guidelines could eventually cause us to wear out our welcomes in a lot of parks. Urban areas would be less affected by a lower distance. A lower distance would result in having more of the same kinds of caches that are already dominating those areas.

[+Team GeoBlast]

numbers schmumbers. Is there a way to seek out these quality caches? Maybe some sort of scenic quality ranking (ala feedback?) could allow both higher density and the rest of us to find those new gems in the hills. I do think of caching as a non-green outdoor activity, for many folks. Let folks cruise around town on their bikes or walking and find as many micros as they like, just give me a way to filter them out of the searches.

 

I don't follow the forums here much, Yes, I seek out the 'wow I never knew those petroglyphs were there even though I've driven by umpteen times' places. Has there ever been any discussion about distinguishing caches based on some sort of 'uniqueness' score? Lists are ok, but not very practical.

 

No, there is nothing like that although there's been a call for it by some for quite a while. The best way to find the caches you like is to read cache pages, inquire on your local forums, go to events and ask folks, and encourage local cachers to make bookmark lists.

[Skippermark]

I would love to see this happen - Actually 396 feet is 0.075 of a Mile

 

There are several good hiding spots in downtown Ottawa that can't be, and if the saturation halo was reduced, it could very easily open up several of these places

 

This sounds like it would be perfect for a well designed multi or mystery cache. For this type of area, I would rather do one cache where I walk around and gather info from signs and historical sites and end up at a scenic or special place with a regular sized themed container instead of finding a nano or key holder every 528 (or 396) feet.