Jump to content

Cache Density by State


Recommended Posts

A recent thread on density, based on zip code, got me thinking. I ran the number of caches in each state, found the land area and population and did some quick calculations. Please note that I ran the numbers on July 7, 2008 and they are constantly changing.

 

So how dense are we?

That depends on what state you live in. I ran the numbers for each state and no big surprise, California has the most caches at 53,157. The state with the least is North Dakota with just 609. (358,251 total in US)

 

Top 5 states in order:

1 - California

2 - Texas

3 - Florida

4 - Washington

5 - Oregon

 

Bottom 5 states

46 - Vermont

47 - Deleware

48 - Rhode Island

49 - Hawaii

50 - North Dakota

 

But what about density? How to determine density? I took the US Census numbers for the land area of each state and divided that by the number of active caches in the state to determine the number of caches per 1000 square miles. (Land area excludes water areas over 1 acre.) The US average was 101.3 caches per 1000 sq. miles. No big surprise Alaska can in last at only 4.4. The state with the highest density is Rhode Island with 838.3.

 

Top 5 states in order:

1 - Rhode Island at 838.3

2 - Connecticut at 714.4

3 - New Jersey at 631.2

4 - Massachusetts at 611.7

5 - Deleaware at 494.0

 

Bottom 5 states:

46 - Wyoming at 25.5

47 - South Dakota at 23.8

48 - Montana at 16.7

49 - North Dakota at 8.8

50 - Alaska at 4.4

 

For reference California has 340.8 caches per 1000 sq. miles.

 

Another stat is the number of caches per person. Again using US Census numbers I came up with the number of caches per 1000 people. The US average was 1.275 aches per 1000 people. For me the big surprises were that New Jersey came in last at 0.55 and Wyoming came in second with 5.02.

 

Top 5 states in order:

1 - Utah at 5.365

2 - Wyoming at 5.02

3 - Idaho at 4.84

4 - Alaska at 4.04

5 - Oregon at 3.61

 

Bottom 5 states:

46 - Maryland at 0.67

47 - Georgia at 0.67

48 - Louisiana at 0.65

49 - New York at 0.60

50 - New Jersey at 0.556

 

For reference California has 1.57 caches per 1000 people.

 

What does all this mean? Not much. After all…

 

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBERS!

 

Loch Cache

from Massachusetts

Link to comment

Hmmm - despite being more than twice as large as Texas, possessing a coastline longer than the rest of America combined, and having about the fewest miles of paved roads (and indoor flush toilets) in the country, Alaska shows up in 4th place for caches per person. Alaska's cache per person ratio of 4.04 is more than three times the national average! WooHoo!

 

Come GeocacheAlaska - the cache density is extremely high per square mile in the 99501 through 99518 zip codes (Anchorage area). There's awesome 'wilderness' caches just off the pavement here as well as sneaky urban hides and terrific trail systems strewn with park-friendly caches. You just have to remember that national parks, preserves, and wildlife refuges are off-limits to caching - which means a majority of Alaska's acreage is closed to geocaching as well... but there's lots of countryside every bit as pretty as those 'off-limits' places where intrepid local cachers have placed 'hides' that will leave you with lifetime memories of the journey enroute to the find. After all, as Loch Cache said - 'IT IS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBERS!'

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

Cool stats, Loch Cache. WY is probably high on the list because it has the lowest population (I think or VT).

 

Utah has such a high number because of AD0Or and his 1000+ hides. That stat there still amazes me.

 

hahaha, don't forget about your Utah hides Mark :ph34r: you leaving caches here and not being counted as living here sure helps our score!

Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

Link to comment

Owww, Owww, Owww...My head hurts now....While you are at it can you calculate the ratio of micros to regular caches in each state and maybe the numbers parking lot light poles that harbor a cache compared to the number that don't? :ph34r:

 

Seriously, I am a little surprised That Georgia was low in the caches per person ratings...There are over 700 within 50 miles of my home coords and I'm not even close to the big city of Atlanta where the density has be be way bigger.

 

Thanks for the work...I'm preety sure there was at least 8 or 10 man hours of research invloved in this. :P

Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

This can be done. I did it two years ago but not this time around.

 

While you are at it can you calculate the ratio of micros to regular caches in each state and maybe the numbers parking lot light poles that harbor a cache compared to the number that don't? :)

 

Seriously, I am a little surprised That Georgia was low in the caches per person ratings...There are over 700 within 50 miles of my home coords and I'm not even close to the big city of Atlanta where the density has be be way bigger.

 

 

Georgia has 8.2 million people (keep in mind I am using census numbers that only update every 10 years)and only 5494 geocaches which ranks it at 21. Georgia is ranked 47 for cache per person at 0.671 and it ranks 31 for cache per 1000 sq. miles at 94.9

 

In May 2006 Georgia had 3592 caches and ranked 18. It ranked 39 for cache per person at 0.439 and it ranked 26 for cache per 100 sq. mile at 62.0.

 

The problem is Georgia had the lowest growth rate. The number of caches grew by only 53%. If you look at Iowa, which grew the greates percentage, they went from 1720 caches to 5342 for a growth rate of 210%

 

Loch Cache

 

PS. For the LPM/LP ratio that ratio positively correlates to the number of Wal-Mart’s per 1000 sq. miles.

Link to comment

A recent thread on density, based on zip code, got me thinking. I ran the number of caches in each state, found the land area and population and did some quick calculations. Please note that I ran the numbers on July 7, 2008 and they are constantly changing.

 

So how dense are we?

That depends on what state you live in. I ran the numbers for each state and no big surprise, California has the most caches at 53,157. The state with the least is North Dakota with just 609. (358,251 total in US)

 

Top 5 states in order:

1 - California

2 - Texas

3 - Florida

4 - Washington

5 - Oregon

 

Bottom 5 states

46 - Vermont

47 - Deleware

48 - Rhode Island

49 - Hawaii

50 - North Dakota

 

But what about density? How to determine density? I took the US Census numbers for the land area of each state and divided that by the number of active caches in the state to determine the number of caches per 1000 square miles. (Land area excludes water areas over 1 acre.) The US average was 101.3 caches per 1000 sq. miles. No big surprise Alaska can in last at only 4.4. The state with the highest density is Rhode Island with 838.3.

 

Top 5 states in order:

1 - Rhode Island at 838.3

2 - Connecticut at 714.4

3 - New Jersey at 631.2

4 - Massachusetts at 611.7

5 - Deleaware at 494.0

 

Bottom 5 states:

46 - Wyoming at 25.5

47 - South Dakota at 23.8

48 - Montana at 16.7

49 - North Dakota at 8.8

50 - Alaska at 4.4

 

For reference California has 340.8 caches per 1000 sq. miles.

 

Another stat is the number of caches per person. Again using US Census numbers I came up with the number of caches per 1000 people. The US average was 1.275 aches per 1000 people. For me the big surprises were that New Jersey came in last at 0.55 and Wyoming came in second with 5.02.

 

Top 5 states in order:

1 - Utah at 5.365

2 - Wyoming at 5.02

3 - Idaho at 4.84

4 - Alaska at 4.04

5 - Oregon at 3.61

 

Bottom 5 states:

46 - Maryland at 0.67

47 - Georgia at 0.67

48 - Louisiana at 0.65

49 - New York at 0.60

50 - New Jersey at 0.556

 

For reference California has 1.57 caches per 1000 people.

 

What does all this mean? Not much. After all…

 

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE NUMBERS!

 

Loch Cache

from Massachusetts

 

Very nice. Actually, when it showed geocaching.com caches on the maps, Buxley's maps used to show that information, with I believe the same method of calculation. You were around back then, but that information is long gone from his maps now. Well, it's still there, but only for Navicaches.

 

Editing to add, I remember New Jersey was always no. 1 in cache density back then, with Rhode Island a close second. I don't

remember Delaware ever being in the mix though.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

 

:):sad::(

 

2006 Micro spew survey Bad link

 

2007 Micro spew survey

 

No, I don't know where 2008 is. :)

 

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what's wrong, the 2006 link doesn't work.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

 

:):sad::(

 

2006 Micro spew survey Bad link

 

2007 Micro spew survey

 

No, I don't know where 2008 is. :)

 

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what's wrong, the 2006 link doesn't work.

The 2007 link does not work for me either.

Link to comment
Georgia has 8.2 million people (keep in mind I am using census numbers that only update every 10 years)and only 5494 geocaches which ranks it at 21. Georgia is ranked 47 for cache per person at 0.671 and it ranks 31 for cache per 1000 sq. miles at 94.9

That surprises me because GA is a pretty big state (compared to New England, where I'm from).

I've only been a to a few parts. Is it really rural? Maybe that's limiting the caches to more urban areas.

Link to comment

I'm REALLY surprised MA is denser in caches than CA. Racking up the numbers in CA for 2 wks was much easier than doing it in MA for 5 yrs. In CA, distance to drive to next cache was MUCH less than in MA. It was nice for vacation caching, but its not the type of caching I would want for home. There seemed to be more urban than rural caches. We traveled dirt roads that were just begging for caches!

 

Just look at all the CA cachers with huge totals. We might have more caches per acre but it takes longer to walk to them out in the woods and look for them under snow, that's for sure. lol

 

If you could figure out a way to see density by location that would be neat. Like density for roadside caches. Density for 1 mile from road caches. And so on.

 

I guess I'm also surprised because years ago when I also used Buxley's site, I don't remember MA being near the top in density. Not when having to drive 20-30 miles between caches. lol

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

 

:lol::D:D

 

2006 Micro spew survey Bad link

 

2007 Micro spew survey

 

No, I don't know where 2008 is. :D

 

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what's wrong, the 2006 link doesn't work.

The 2007 link does not work for me either.

 

Oh crud, that's because it's a .pdf at a yahoo group. The second one does work for me. Since you're probably the only one that's interested, I'll just contact you. It's just done with Pocket Queries, by the way.

Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

 

:lol::D:D

 

2006 Micro spew survey Bad link

 

2007 Micro spew survey

 

No, I don't know where 2008 is. :D

 

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what's wrong, the 2006 link doesn't work.

The 2007 link does not work for me either.

 

Oh crud, that's because it's a .pdf at a yahoo group. The second one does work for me. Since you're probably the only one that's interested, I'll just contact you. It's just done with Pocket Queries, by the way.

 

Oh just print the numbers.

Link to comment

Interesting how things change. A few years ago, NJ was tops in density. MA passed it sometime around 2005, but now MA is 4th.

 

The cache density was a few pages into Buxley's maps, so not much got indexed on the Wayback Machine.

 

All I have is December 17, 2002 Geocache Density and

 

February 25, 2005 Geocache Density

 

The current leader on Buxleys, since they've shown Navicaches only since early 2006? New York. I know, no one cares. :lol:

Link to comment

I'm REALLY surprised MA is denser in caches than CA. Racking up the numbers in CA for 2 wks was much easier than doing it in MA for 5 yrs. In CA, distance to drive to next cache was MUCH less than in MA.

In the populated areas, CA has zillions (is that a word?) of caches, but there is such huge amounts of vast open space that land-wise, the density is lower.

 

The northeast (especially CT, NJ, MA & RI) is packed with people and doesn't have that much open space, giving us higher density rates.

Link to comment

That's pretty interesting to me. The caches by area make sense, but I would not have guessed that much spread in caches per person across the various states.

 

Although I wouldn't try it and don't know if it can be done, the different ratios of micros to regulars would be interesting too.

 

:D:lol::D

 

2006 Micro spew survey Bad link

 

2007 Micro spew survey

 

No, I don't know where 2008 is. :D

 

Edit: Sorry, I don't know what's wrong, the 2006 link doesn't work.

The 2007 link does not work for me either.

 

Oh crud, that's because it's a .pdf at a yahoo group. The second one does work for me. Since you're probably the only one that's interested, I'll just contact you. It's just done with Pocket Queries, by the way.

 

Oh just print the numbers.

 

OK, if you insist. Refer any flames to BrianSnat.

 

I copied the .pdf's, and put them up in my own webspace. I'm sure the author doesn't mind. :D

 

2006 Micro Spew Survey of major U.S. Cities

 

2007 Micro Spew Survey of major U.S. Cities

Link to comment

I'm not quite sure what the rank means since there two of them. Is the % column % of micros versus total caches?

 

I believe this only applies to 2007, and I'm not sure myself what the more lefter rank #'s (in order) are, but the righter rank #'s are correct, the list just isn't sorted by them. Seeing as it's a "micro spew survey", the # 1 rated city (Boston, I believe) has the fewest micros, the 35th rated (New Orleans?) has the most. Yes, it's definitely micros vs. total caches.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...