Jump to content

how many caches is too many?


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

We would like to put some more caches out on the Olympic Discovery Trail. The last one we attempted to do was declined and in their response to us they told us we had too many caches on the Trail to let others put them there. Also to let others put them in our area since we have 17 out in the Sequim area. We were attempting to put caches out on this trail .2 of a mile away from each other. Each cache is different from the others. they are not the same. There has been only 1 new cache in our area in the month of June and it is 12 miles away. The closest one this week is in British Columbia. We are pretty discouraged about putting more caches out anywhere in our area. Admittingly power cachers can have fun trying to find them and so far no one has found them all in a day. This style of cache layout makes it fun for families to keep the interest of their children up. What do you think about caches .2 of a mile apart on a single trail and also having more than 17 caches by one person in an area which is the dungeness valley area.

Link to comment

We would like to put some more caches out on the Olympic Discovery Trail. The last one we attempted to do was declined and in their response to us they told us we had too many caches on the Trail to let others put them there. Also to let others put them in our area since we have 17 out in the Sequim area. We were attempting to put caches out on this trail .2 of a mile away from each other. Each cache is different from the others. they are not the same. There has been only 1 new cache in our area in the month of June and it is 12 miles away. The closest one this week is in British Columbia. We are pretty discouraged about putting more caches out anywhere in our area. Admittingly power cachers can have fun trying to find them and so far no one has found them all in a day. This style of cache layout makes it fun for families to keep the interest of their children up. What do you think about caches .2 of a mile apart on a single trail and also having more than 17 caches by one person in an area which is the dungeness valley area.

 

I can't imagine having a cache rejected because "you already have too many in the area"

 

I haven't done this series of caches yet, but the approach they took to place them was very neat. A series of 28 caches placed on a trail by 15 or so different cachers. Perhaps that would be a good way to get more caches in the area.

 

edit:removed bogus URL

Edited by Moose Mob
Link to comment

Who said you couldn't place anymore in the area?? Are you sure they were not just refering to caches along the trail? Power trails tend to form all by themselves over time with work of unrelated cachers placing caches over the years. If a reviewer deems you are trying to form the trail mostly by yourself - they tend to deny the publishing.

 

Find a new area a few miles away. Place caches slowly - 1 now and then - not all close together in a short time period.

Link to comment
Though apparently they have some policy about this that you crossed.

 

"Some policy" is found in the guidelines:

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

Link to comment
Though apparently they have some policy about this that you crossed.

 

"Some policy" is found in the guidelines:

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

'That's a power trail, I know one when I see it' is one of those nebulous things that is apparently at the discretion of your Reviewer.

 

The Proximity guideline calls for a minimum distance of .1

 

The Power Trail guideline mentions "every 600 feet" and "just because you can"

 

There is no written guideline for how many you can have in an area.

 

If you are doing it to take folks from point to point along a trail then you are not doing it "just because you can".

 

If they are .2 apart then they are both within the .1 Proximity guideline and the Power Trail guideline as they are not "every 600 feet"

 

Regardless of the published guidelines, however, if your Reviewer decides that it's a Power Trail, it is because he says it is!

 

It's confusing, sometimes aggravating, but allowing our Reviewers this kind of discretion is in fact good for the game... or at least they believe it is at the time they exercise it... they are in the bidness of getting listings published while keeping the game sane, and that sometimes requires this kind of a judgment call!

 

You may find relief in the Power Trail guideline that reads "A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache." but still may encounter the question of how many and how close can stages of a multi be.

 

It's all about the smilies, as far as I can tell... 6 caches .2 apart nets 6 smilies and may be called a Power Trail. Call those same 6 caches stages of a single multicache worth 1 smilie and it likely won't be. :D

Link to comment

I did the Pushawalla Power Trail series outside of Palm Springs with 25 caches along a 5 mile trail. That made them about 1,000 feet apart. After completeing it I realized that the caching had actually taken away from enjoying the trail. So for me personally I would rather have had them at critical trial points where it turns or there was something special about the location.

Link to comment

We would like to put some more caches out on the Olympic Discovery Trail. The last one we attempted to do was declined and in their response to us they told us we had too many caches on the Trail to let others put them there....

 

There is a guidelines called 'cache saturation'. It's intent was to let reviewers who knew there were starting to be enough caches to raise concerns by landonwers be able to not approve the cache even though the cache met all other guidelines.

 

This rule has since been stretched to include cachers who "place too many" and just caused the geo-suicied of a nearby cacher.

 

There is no magic number for how many "too many" is. If the reason you gave for the denial is accurat it's not cache saturation as another cacher could place the cache and it would be approved. Cache saturation isn't about any one cacher. It's about caches.

 

There is a rule of ediquite (I can't spell that word) that says "don't dominate your area and let others place caches too" but that's not a guideline.

Link to comment
Though apparently they have some policy about this that you crossed.

 

"Some policy" is found in the guidelines:

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

This site needs to revise that guiceline. It's taking cache ownership away from the owner and putting it on the site. That also moves liablity (if any) from the owner to this site and they have made it very clear they don't want to be anything but a listing site.

 

However it's worth pointing out the solution presented in the guidelines is not to deny the cache but to force the owner to list it as another kind.

Link to comment

... This rule has since been stretched to include cachers who "place too many" and just caused the geo-suicied of a nearby cacher.

This game is a microcosm of life, life's not fair, and the 'rules' for it are often unclear. A geocide is usually more about a cacher not getting his way than about the enforcement of some guideline.

 

Caches get denied, big deal, move on. Anyone that quits the game over it quits over control issues, not over the cache listing denial!

Link to comment

... This rule has since been stretched to include cachers who "place too many" and just caused the geo-suicied of a nearby cacher.

This game is a microcosm of life, life's not fair, and the 'rules' for it are often unclear. A geocide is usually more about a cacher not getting his way than about the enforcement of some guideline.

 

Caches get denied, big deal, move on. Anyone that quits the game over it quits over control issues, not over the cache listing denial!

You can say that again. The game is truly a microcosm of life. Reviewers are different and we all have gone through what we think is not justified when when one of our cache submissions is rejected. Go with the flow folks and change your submission or try another approach.

Link to comment

A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

This site needs to revise that guiceline. It's taking cache ownership away from the owner and putting it on the site. That also moves liablity (if any) from the owner to this site and they have made it very clear they don't want to be anything but a listing site.

 

However it's worth pointing out the solution presented in the guidelines is not to deny the cache but to force the owner to list it as another kind.

I agree that it needs revising. Why should a cache owner change it to be a multicache? What difference would it make? Some people prefer several caches instead of one long multi. Others like it the other way round. What's the guideline really suggesting?

Link to comment

....Caches get placed by the rules but 'saturate', big deal, move on. Anyone that quits the game over it quits over control issues, not over the cache listing denial!

 

True enough. Big deal. The reviewer should approve it rather than making it a control issue pissing match. If two cachers can place the caches and get approved vs one who's denied. It's not saturation. It's conrol and guess who has the control over the publishing of the listing?

Link to comment

If you are placing caches that people enjoy, then the more the merrier. If they're stinkers, then consider sticking to finding rather than hiding.

 

Personally, and everybody has their own "personally", I'd prefer to see them scattered about to explore new area or a new piece of an area already visited. Locally, everyplace fitting for a cache has had one years ago so there isn't much new area to visit. I'd also suggest spreading them out time wise.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...