Over saturation by one cacher

[greywolf1242]

A while back I had a number of caches placed on hold by a certain reviewer. The situation was never resolved and I have yet to hear from the reviewer or Groundspeak in weeks. It was suggested, on here, that perhaps I oversaturated the area since 80% of the caches in that specific area are mine. Then I read on another forum where one person as 16 caches in a State Park that is only 545 acres in size. I have no idea how many other caches may be hidden in that park. The area where I had my caches placed on hold is 2400 acres + and I had 18 caches in that area prior to having additional caches place on hold and subsquently not published, which would have brought the total caches hidden by me to 31....in a 2400 + acre area. This area in question, BTW, is very rugged with no road access into the majority of the area.

 

My question is: If 16 caches hidden in a 545 acre State Park by one person is not considered oversaturation, why would 31 caches hidden in a 2400 + acre area be considered oversaturation? I guess I'm a little confused on how these determinations are made...if they are being made impartially.

 

greywolf1242

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A while back I had a number of caches placed on hold by a certain reviewer. The situation was never resolved and I have yet to hear from the reviewer or Groundspeak in weeks. It was suggested, on here, that perhaps I oversaturated the area since 80% of the caches in that specific area are mine. Then I read on another forum where one person as 16 caches in a State Park that is only 545 acres in size. I have no idea how many other caches may be hidden in that park. The area where I had my caches placed on hold is 2400 acres + and I had 18 caches in that area prior to having additional caches place on hold and subsquently not published, which would have brought the total caches hidden by me to 31....in a 2400 + acre area. This area in question, BTW, is very rugged with no road access into the majority of the area.

 

My question is: If 16 caches hidden in a 545 acre State Park by one person is not considered oversaturation, why would 31 caches hidden in a 2400 + acre area be considered oversaturation? I guess I'm a little confused on how these determinations are made...if they are being made impartially.

 

greywolf1242

Excellent question for your Reviewer, we forum slugs can't answer it.

 

Write him/her again... If you don't get a response it's likely that the Reviewer feels that he has already adequately answered you.

[CoyoteRed]

...if they are being made impartially.

There ya go. There are different reviewers throughout the country and they all have slightly differing interpretations of the guidelines and have different criteria for giving their blessings to listings. IIRC, there was more going on with your caches than mere saturation.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Excellent question for your Reviewer, we forum slugs can't answer it....

 

He has. This reviewer hasn't responded. It's actually a question for TPTB so reviewers can get a grip on it. They enforce it but we still need to understand it. When we don't we just waste yet more reviewer time.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Perhaps you have run afoul of the 'power trail' problem?

I'm still working on a nice series of 23 caches a few miles south of here. Clusters of five in various parks/trails. Far enough apart not to be considered a power trail.

Enquire politely of your reviewer.

[+TrailGators]

One possibility is that the reviewer may not want to push things and hide too many caches with certain parks. So comparing one park to another may not be valid at all. Sometimes caches can be like straws on the camels back with some parks. What is this park's geocaching policy?

 

Also even though the park is 2400 acres we have no idea how densely your caches have been placed. Could some of your 31 caches be considered to be a power trail?

[greywolf1242]

One possibility is that the reviewer may not want to push things and hide too many caches with certain parks. So comparing one park to another may not be valid at all. Sometimes caches can be like straws on the camels back with some parks. What is this park's geocaching policy?

 

Also even though the park is 2400 acres we have no idea how densely your caches have been placed. Could some of your 31 caches be considered to be a power trail?

 

It really doesn't have a 'park' designation. It is treated as such by many people, but truly not a park. It is managed by the BLM and I have an excellent rapport with the manager of this particular area and have received his blessings for the caches I had out. But, the other park is only a little over 100 miles from this area and has the same reviewers as this area. I do know that reviewers read the formus also and was hoping I might get a response from one of them. And, no, don't believe the caches in question could be considered a 'power trail'. Many of the caches that were not published are more than .20 miles apart from other caches in the area and some were in totally different parts of this beautiful spot. Just hoping to get some kind of definitive answer on what constitutes oversaturation in any given area.

[+Lasagna]

And so I assume there are 31 very unique locations to which you need to bring me that warrant such a proliferation of caches? Oh ... since it's a park, I assume you have the permission of the land manager to place all the caches there, correct?

 

If not, I think the reviewer is trying to hint that you should:

 

a) find somewhere else to bring cachers to (I can't imagine you have only one park nearby)

leave some space in this park for others to hide

c) don't abuse a good thing by crossing the line from the obscure "geocache" to nothing more than "litter"

d) consider that quality not quantity is better

 

I've been to parks much larger that have on a handful of caches and I've been to smaller parks that due to their unique natural makeup have a large number of caches.

 

At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

[+Renegade Knight]

...At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

At the end of the day, I'd probably chose the land manages judgment over a reviewer. Since the OP has worked with the land manager and knows that judgment I'm thinking that's a good thing. But maybe that's just me.

[greywolf1242]

And so I assume there are 31 very unique locations to which you need to bring me that warrant such a proliferation of caches? Oh ... since it's a park, I assume you have the permission of the land manager to place all the caches there, correct?

 

If not, I think the reviewer is trying to hint that you should:

 

a) find somewhere else to bring cachers to (I can't imagine you have only one park nearby)

 

c) don't abuse a good thing by crossing the line from the obscure "geocache" to nothing more than "litter"

d) consider that quality not quantity is better

 

I've been to parks much larger that have on a handful of caches and I've been to smaller parks that due to their unique natural makeup have a large number of caches.

 

At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

 

"And so I assume there are 31 very unique locations to which you need to bring me that warrant such a proliferation of caches?"

 

There are actually hundreds of unique locations within this area.

 

"Oh ... since it's a park, I assume you have the permission of the land manager to place all the caches there, correct?"

 

Would you like his name and phone number? He is with the BLM and is the manager over the area in question. I ran the caches by him and he saw no problem with their placement.

"

 

"a) find somewhere else to bring cachers to (I can't imagine you have only one park nearby)

If you would pull up all the caches I have published, you would see this isn't the only area where I place caches.

 

"d) consider that quality not quantity is better"

A review of the logs for most of my caches in this area would show you that most of the people who find my caches believe they are quality caches, even though most of them are micros. Of course, not every one leaaves comments, just a TFTH. Hard to say what they thought of the caches they found.

[cowcreekgeeks]

And so I assume there are 31 very unique locations to which you need to bring me that warrant such a proliferation of caches? Oh ... since it's a park, I assume you have the permission of the land manager to place all the caches there, correct?

 

If not, I think the reviewer is trying to hint that you should:

 

a) find somewhere else to bring cachers to (I can't imagine you have only one park nearby)

leave some space in this park for others to hide

c) don't abuse a good thing by crossing the line from the obscure "geocache" to nothing more than "litter"

d) consider that quality not quantity is better

 

I've been to parks much larger that have on a handful of caches and I've been to smaller parks that due to their unique natural makeup have a large number of caches.

 

At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

 

I think you're being kind of abrasive and you assume too much. If you had read all of the above posts you would have known that the OP has an excellent rapport with the land manager.

 

In 2500 acres, there can't be 31 "unique locations?" What if the OP has a cool cache container that just fits in a certain area?

 

At the end of the day, the reason this topic exists is because the reviewer didn't respond to the OP.

 

My apologies if I'm being kind of abrasive or if I assumed too much.

[+ArtieD]

A review of the logs for most of my caches in this area would show you that most of the people who find my caches believe they are quality caches, even though most of them are micros. Of course, not every one leaaves comments, just a TFTH. Hard to say what they thought of the caches they found.

 

Therein lies your problem in my eyes at least...you have over 2,400 acres to work with and the best you can do to reward people for the hike is a micro?

[cowcreekgeeks]

A review of the logs for most of my caches in this area would show you that most of the people who find my caches believe they are quality caches, even though most of them are micros. Of course, not every one leaaves comments, just a TFTH. Hard to say what they thought of the caches they found.

 

Therein lies your problem in my eyes at least...you have over 2,400 acres to work with and the best you can do to reward people for the hike is a micro?

 

The reward for the hike is the hike!

This is a volunteer activity. If greywolf wants to hide micros under dumpsters and the hide is within the guidelines and you go out there and climb around the dumpster to find it...whose fault is it? You don't have to find every hide. You can read the cache page and determine which ones you go after.

 

I personally don't like micros but I figured out a way to deal with them...yup, I don't look.

Edited July 10, 2008 by cowcreekgeeks

[+infiniteMPG]

Therein lies your problem in my eyes at least...you have over 2,400 acres to work with and the best you can do to reward people for the hike is a micro?

Hmmm, seems to be back to that "Hey! I just hiked 10 miles so why isn't there a full sized cache I can trade my crayons for a new keychain?" log. The challenge should be the hike and/or the location and that should not be spoiled by complaints that the cache wasn't big enough for you to trade McCrap for once you got there.....

 

We have a local preserve that's over 5,700 acres and there is a nice mix of full, small and micro caches and other then tricky camo jobs the challenge is different on each one not on the size of the container.... over 50 caches and a true mix.

[+ArtieD]

We have a local preserve that's over 5,700 acres and there is a nice mix of full, small and micro caches and other then tricky camo jobs the challenge is different on each one not on the size of the container.... over 50 caches and a true mix.

 

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting.

 

If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity...

[+Shop99er]

A review of the logs for most of my caches in this area would show you that most of the people who find my caches believe they are quality caches, even though most of them are micros. Of course, not every one leaaves comments, just a TFTH. Hard to say what they thought of the caches they found.

 

Therein lies your problem in my eyes at least...you have over 2,400 acres to work with and the best you can do to reward people for the hike is a micro?

 

If the only reason you have to hunt a cache is the container, then you have missed the whole point of the game. The reward (!) is supposed to be the hike and/or the location.

 

BOT--Ask the Reviewer nicely, one more time. If he/she doesn't answer, fire a mail to GS.

[greywolf1242]

We have a local preserve that's over 5,700 acres and there is a nice mix of full, small and micro caches and other then tricky camo jobs the challenge is different on each one not on the size of the container.... over 50 caches and a true mix.

 

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting.

 

If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity...

 

"If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity..."

Let's see if I understand this statement in the context if was made. You equate the size of a cache to mean it is either 'creative' or shows a lack of 'creativity'; am i correct in reading that statement as how you meant it? Would that mean that of the 15 caches you have put out, seven of them would not be 'creative' because they were either 'small' or 'micro' caches? I had over 250 caches placed, prior to this problem, but have since archived some of them. And, NO, they are not all in the same area. A little research would show you that. It would also show you that I do have other than 'micro' caches hidden in the area in question. As far as 'creativity' goes; that should be determined more by where the cache is placed (location, location, location), the way it is hidden, and in some cases, the container in which it is hidden, regardless of size. If you are, however, more interested it trading dollar store items, it is easy enough to determine before you go afield which caches you don't even want to attempt to find because of their size.

[+Mudfrog]

A review of the logs for most of my caches in this area would show you that most of the people who find my caches believe they are quality caches, even though most of them are micros. Of course, not every one leaaves comments, just a TFTH. Hard to say what they thought of the caches they found.

 

Therein lies your problem in my eyes at least...you have over 2,400 acres to work with and the best you can do to reward people for the hike is a micro?

Doesn't matter if it's a micro, lacks creativity, or is not up to your's or the reviewer's high standards,,,, It should be a go if it meets gc.com guidelines and has permission of the land owner.

[+PhxChem]

...At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

At the end of the day, I'd probably chose the land manages judgment over a reviewer. Since the OP has worked with the land manager and knows that judgment I'm thinking that's a good thing. But maybe that's just me.

 

The land manager decides if he can hide a box on the land. The reviewer (and Groundspeak) decides if they want to list the cache. The land manager cannot make Groundspeak list the cache.....

 

Any questions?

 

To the OP: So, are those caches distributed evenly across the 2000+ acres? Or are they actually distributed across a couple hundred acres?

 

If you don't get an answer in this thread, you could always wait a week and start yet another thread.......

[+Stargazer22]

Personally, I find it VERY disappointing to go to a park or an area and find that almost all of the caches in the area were placed by the same one hider.

I enjoy the variety that different hiders can give to the game.

And I would hope that there are some folks out there who are kind enough to the rest of the community to leave a little space for the rest of us to have somewhere to hide a cache.

If the reviewers are helping to keep the game alive by letting more than just one hider place in a given area, then KUDOS to them!

Is it really necessary to take all the hiding places in the same area for yourself? Thereby saturating the area in a way that no one else can hide there?

New cachers join the game every day. How about leaving a few places for them to put some hides?

[+Star*Hopper]

"If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity..."

 

What? People who aren't creative (and whom may I ask, holds the Go-NoGo gage on that?) shouldn't be allowed to play the game?

 

Fair warning, all you wheelchair-bound ne'er-do-wells -- you might be next!

 

***

[+ArtieD]

"If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity..."

 

What? People who aren't creative (and whom may I ask, holds the Go-NoGo gage on that?) shouldn't be allowed to play the game?

 

Fair warning, all you wheelchair-bound ne'er-do-wells -- you might be next!

 

***

 

You miss my point entirely. What I meant was that in a place than can support larger caches it is less creative to hide micros when other sizes can be used.

 

Micros definately have their place. I have hidden quite a few because the location warranted it.

[+slackpacker]

Personally, I find it VERY disappointing to go to a park or an area and find that almost all of the caches in the area were placed by the same one hider.

I enjoy the variety that different hiders can give to the game.

And I would hope that there are some folks out there who are kind enough to the rest of the community to leave a little space for the rest of us to have somewhere to hide a cache.

If the reviewers are helping to keep the game alive by letting more than just one hider place in a given area, then KUDOS to them!

Is it really necessary to take all the hiding places in the same area for yourself? Thereby saturating the area in a way that no one else can hide there?

New cachers join the game every day. How about leaving a few places for them to put some hides?

 

I understand what you're saying and agree 100%.

 

That said, a "blanket rule" regarding saturation might not be appropriate; for example, I live in a small mountain town with 2,500 year-round residents but seasonal and tourist populations of 100,000+. To my knowledge, there are only 2 other year-round 'caching families in town, neither of which has hidden a cache - nothing wrong with that, but over the past two years my 30 or so caches in town have slowly come to represent the majority of hides in the immediate area. I have tried to make things interesting (couple of multi's, puzzles, only a few P&G micro's, mostly trad's in the woods with a hike) - but I am becoming uncomfortable with the saturation. There are tons of awesome spots for caches around here, I just wish someone else would hide one!

 

Not sure if that is a factor for the OP in rural Idaho (more to it than just that, I believe) but a lack of local cache-hiders may play a part.

 

Sounds like the reviewers are evaluating "satuaration" on a case-by-case basis, which seems entirely appropriate. That's probably why you don't see any very specific rules.

 

[Oh, and you know that the couple of easy P&G micro's get way more hits than the waterfall and mountaintop caches that require a hike - but that is a topic for another thread.]

[+WebChimp]

A while back I had a number of caches placed on hold by a certain reviewer. ...... This area in question, BTW, is very rugged with no road access into the majority of the area.

....... I guess I'm a little confused on how these determinations are made...if they are being made impartially.

 

Oh.

 

I see the beatings have resumed. Let me check..........

 

Yes, as I expected.

 

The horse is still dead.

[knowschad]

We have a local preserve that's over 5,700 acres and there is a nice mix of full, small and micro caches and other then tricky camo jobs the challenge is different on each one not on the size of the container.... over 50 caches and a true mix.

 

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting.

 

If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity...

 

What you say here, or what you said about your opinion on micros has NOTHING to do with why the reviewer would reject these hides. You are simply stating your own preferences, and that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

[+ArtieD]

We have a local preserve that's over 5,700 acres and there is a nice mix of full, small and micro caches and other then tricky camo jobs the challenge is different on each one not on the size of the container.... over 50 caches and a true mix.

 

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting.

 

If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity...

 

What you say here, or what you said about your opinion on micros has NOTHING to do with why the reviewer would reject these hides. You are simply stating your own preferences, and that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

 

Quite true, and I apologize.

 

On topic, I really don't know why the reviewer hasn't allowed them. My only guesses are concerns about the environment, maintenance, etc.

[greywolf1242]

We have a local preserve that's over 5,700 acres and there is a nice mix of full, small and micro caches and other then tricky camo jobs the challenge is different on each one not on the size of the container.... over 50 caches and a true mix.

 

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting.

 

If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity...

 

What you say here, or what you said about your opinion on micros has NOTHING to do with why the reviewer would reject these hides. You are simply stating your own preferences, and that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

 

Quite true, and I apologize.

 

On topic, I really don't know why the reviewer hasn't allowed them. My only guesses are concerns about the environment, maintenance, etc.

 

Apology accepted. BTW, you can be just as 'creative' hiding a micro as you can an ammo can. That being said....

 

I did a little research on caches hidden in the Gooding Little City of Rocks. As of today, there are 30 caches that I could determine were within the boundaries of the area in question, counting three that my cousin placed that are unpublished at this time. Twenty of those belong to me, ten belong to others, a few of those belonging to my cousin.

 

The oldest cache hidden: Monolitic Metropolis GCA5EZ, hidden Nov 8, 2002, an ammo can-sized cache. Along the main canyon.

Visits:

2002 – 8

2003 – 11

2004 – 6

2005 – 5

2006 – 10

2007 – 3

2008 – 3

 

Humpty Dumpty GCXJEH, ammo can, within 20 yards of parking area, hidden Aug 6, 2006.

Visits:

2006 – 12

2007 – 14

2008 – 4

 

Ridge Rock GCYPPC, small, hidden Oct 6, 2006, requires an uphill hike.

Visits:

2006 – 1

2007 – 4

2008 – 3

 

AETOYS GC11GMD, ammo can, hidden Mar 17.2007, requires a short hike.

Visits:

2007 – 7

2008 – 4

 

ETD: East Fork Overlook GC12ED7, ammo can-sized cache, hidden Apr 25, 2007, requires hike of less than 1 mile.

Visits:

2007 – 1

2008 – 2

 

ETD: LCR Table Rock GC14GJD, micro, hidden July 20, 2007, requires short hike from high-clearance vehicle road, or approx. .9 mile hike from nearest parking.

Visits:

2007 – 4

2008 – 1

 

Al’s Cache GC15M98, ammo can, hidden Sept 2, 2007, reqires a hike of less than .3 mi., mostly uphill.

Visits:

2007 – 2

2008 – 4

 

ETD: In Memory of Rawhide GC1BFW7, micro, hidden Apr 21, 2008, requires short hike.

Visits:

2008 – 4

 

Little City of Rocks GC1CX4Z, micro, hidden June 2, 2008, can drive right up to this one.

Visits:

2008 – 3

 

Other than the caches hidden by myself or my cousin, none of the caches belongs to a person living in the local area (within 20 miles). The most recent cache placed by anyone other than myself or my cousin was Rapunzel Don’t Look Down GC11D80, hidden on Mar 11, 2007. This is an ammo can cache and has had a total of 11 logs; 8 in 2007 and 3 so far this year.

 

The Gooding Little City of Rocks is a very rugged area with steep canyons and giant rocks scattered everywhere and a few blind canyons. Unless a cache is hidden low along the main canyon, most caches would warrant a terrain difficulty of at least 3.5, and a 4 in most cases. This kind of discourages any but the most serious cachers from exploring this magnificent area. The cachers who seek caches in this area do so as much for what they are shown as for any cache they may find. It is not unusual for a cacher to have just a few caches on their agenda when coming to this area because of its ruggedness. No off-road vehicles are permitted because it is a Wilderness Study Area, so nearly all the caches placed in this area have to be found on foot and require more than a few minutes walk to reach most of them.

 

I practice CITO every time I come to this area and check on other people’s caches as well as my own; primarily for too much foot traffic, so I can either move one of my caches or notify the owner of the cache in question that they may need to move theirs. Perhaps this is why I have such a good relationship with the BLM manager over this area and why he doesn’t see a problem with any of the caches I have placed here.

 

Here is a complete list of all caches presently located in the Gooding Little City of Rocks; including three that have yet to be approved:

 

Little City of Rocks GC1CX4Z

ETD: LCR Table Rock GC14GJD

Native American Shelter GC1D9ZZ

A Place to Rest Too GC1B220

What A Hike! GC1B224

AETOYS GC11GMD

Up On Top – QB GC1DR94

Monolithic Visit GCZ3XD

Al’s Cache GC15M98

ETD: On the Rim GC1B5G0

ETD: In Memory of Rawhide GC1BFW7

ETD: Short Rest, On Top GC1B5GC

Humpty Dumpty! GCXJEH

ETD: East Fork Overlook GC12ED7

ETD: Pit Stop GC1B5GR

Head of the Canyon GC1D2NT

Monolithic Metropolis GCA5E2

ETD: Canyon Overlook GC1B6MD

Ridge Rock GCYPPC

Rapunzel Don’t Look Down GC11D80

ETD: A Seat in the Wind GCBFVJ

ETD: LCR NE Rim GC1BGRB

ETD: LCR East Fork GC14MM0

ETD: End of the Fence GC1B4C5

ETD: LCR 1 Mile GC14MKR

ETD: End of My Trail GC1B4BV

ETD: High Road 1BC8Z

Primitive Camp – QB GC1E1E0

A Place in the Sun – QB GC1E1E3

In the Eye of the Storm – QB GC1E1E7

[+Renegade Knight]

...At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

At the end of the day, I'd probably chose the land manages judgment over a reviewer. Since the OP has worked with the land manager and knows that judgment I'm thinking that's a good thing. But maybe that's just me.

 

The land manager decides if he can hide a box on the land. The reviewer (and Groundspeak) decides if they want to list the cache. The land manager cannot make Groundspeak list the cache.....

 

Any questions?...

 

Sure.

 

Say there are two cachers placing essentially the same cache. One talks to the land owner and one just places the cache. The site rejects the one the landonwer knew about and lists the one the landowner didn't. What then?

 

Oh that's right. In your scenario (which is accurate as to who does what) the land owner is screwed.

 

You know, since the owner of the cache is the one responsible for it and not this site I'm still going to go with the landowner. After all at the end of the day it's the cache owner who needs to be in the good graces of landowners regardless if a reviewer on this site or another dictating cache placements via guidelines.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The oldest cache hidden: Monolitic Metropolis GCA5EZ, hidden Nov 8, 2002, an ammo can-sized cache. ...

 

That's a very nice cache. I've got a night cache that would be perfect in the area. Actually any old box canyon that's close enough to town for an enjoyable night cache and yet far enough way so muggles would leave it alone. That area of the state is perfect for a days outing to get this one placed.

[+PhxChem]

...At the end of the day, respect the reviewer's judgement and find somewhere else to make your hides.

At the end of the day, I'd probably chose the land manages judgment over a reviewer. Since the OP has worked with the land manager and knows that judgment I'm thinking that's a good thing. But maybe that's just me.

 

The land manager decides if he can hide a box on the land. The reviewer (and Groundspeak) decides if they want to list the cache. The land manager cannot make Groundspeak list the cache.....

 

Any questions?...

 

Sure.

 

Say there are two cachers placing essentially the same cache. One talks to the land owner and one just places the cache. The site rejects the one the landowner knew about and lists the one the landowner didn't. What then?

 

Oh that's right. In your scenario (which is accurate as to who does what) the land owner is screwed.

 

You know, since the owner of the cache is the one responsible for it and not this site I'm still going to go with the landowner. After all at the end of the day it's the cache owner who needs to be in the good graces of landowners regardless if a reviewer on this site or another dictating cache placements via guidelines.

 

Even if the landowner gets "screwed" (whatever that may mean in this situation), it is still up to Groundspeak to allow it to be listed or not. That was my only point. The "owner" has said yes, GP has said no because of a saturation issue (apparently). The landownder in your scenario can contact Groundspeak if the unauthorized cache needs to be delisted.

 

So:

 

If the landowner says no, then Groundspeak should not list it. That seems obvious.

What may be less obvious is if the landowner says yes (as in this situation), Groundspeak does not have an obligation to publish it if it breaks other guidelines.

 

The rule about saturation does not lie solely in environmental issues. It seems that Groundspeak is also concerned with having any one member owning too high a percentage of caches in an area.

 

I believe that this is reasonable. Others may disagree.

[4wheelin_fool]

My question is: If 16 caches hidden in a 545 acre State Park by one person is not considered oversaturation, why would 31 caches hidden in a 2400 + acre area be considered oversaturation? I guess I'm a little confused on how these determinations are made...if they are being made impartially.

 

Dude, you've done an excellent job of working with your land manager. However, your reviewer has also done an excellent job in managing cache listings. This is the part that's important:

 

How could I list all of these

submissions, then tell anyone else that the park they are trying to

squeeze another container into is full?

 

The land manager knows whats best for the area, and the reviewer knows whats best for the game and the area. You have pointed to another precedent in a different place, with a different reviewer and a different situation. It seems that your reviewer is just trying to balance the scales and not have you create continue a trend. It looks like there has also been a little bit of miscommunication on both sides.

 

I would just continue hiding caches but spread them out. Sometimes the best part of hiding caches is seeing someone else enjoy your caches and then have them go out and hide some so you can enjoy finding theirs. If cachers really like the area and your caches, they will naturally want to hide some nearby themselves. Move on to a different spot and don't be so stubborn.

 

But it's OK to be a little stubborn, but I'd never admit to it, as one of my favorite sayings:

No matter what happens, I'll never, ever admit to being stubborn.

 

Good luck.

Edited July 11, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+TeamAtlas]

Greywolf, I really have nothing to add but just wanted to say that I have been following your threads lately about this issue and I do feel for you. I know it is frustrating and annoying for this to happen, but sometimes things like this happen and we have no control over it. We just have to accept it and move on. I know your intentions are good. I know you love the sport and want to add to it. For that I commend you. And I also know the reviewers love the sport and want to do what's best for it also. There is no win/win situation here. They've already told you repeatedly they think it's over-saturation on your part, based on the emails from them you posted on another thread. I know you don't agree and you give valid arguments as to why your caches should be listed. And from what you've told us, I agree with you that they should, but it's ultimately left up to the reviewer. And further discussions and repeatedly bringing this matter up won't solve anything. TPTB have their minds made up. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is sometimes. Maybe you should look into listing your caches on another site. Don't get discouraged, keep on caching and don't let this whole incident stop you from doing what you enjoy. Best of luck to you.

[+paleolith]

why would 31 caches hidden in a 2400 + acre area be considered oversaturation?

The only truly on-topic comment I have is ...

 

It's not really the size of the area that matters, but the cacheable area. Are the caches all along trails? If so, then the total trail length is a better indicator, and even that number should be reduced where trails are close enough to interfere in terms of cache concentration.

 

The rest is indirectly related to the topic ...

 

When I see 237 hides and 900 finds, that sets off a red flag. Such a ratio needs explanation. Remember that there's a global find/hide ratio. Hiding more caches, in the global view, results in fewer finds/cache. I'm sure that in the Early Days, the opposite was true -- needed more caches to encourage people to go caching. Probably true in many locales still. Now, more caches generally doesn't result in more finds, just fewer finds/cache. In general, if your find/hide ratio is lower than the number of lifetime finds you'd like to see on the caches you place, you have some explaining to do.

 

That said, I think you've presented a good case for a low find/hide ratio in your situation. Most finders in the area will be visitors, and thus local cachers would reasonably be placing caches for visitors, thus decreasing the find/hide ratio of local cachers. You might be able to use this argument with the reviewers (no guarantee). Of the nine caches for which you listed stats, they are receiving a decent number of finds. If most of the finders are visitors to the area, this would support your argument that more hides by locals are warranted. (I have not attempted to count visitors, nor have I look up the find counts on the other caches you list.)

 

I gather that you are trying to get 13 caches approved all at once. This may (may) also be setting off flags for the reviewers. I would take the approach of getting them approved at the rate of about one per month -- just submit one each month if they are independent, or submit them in small batches if they are dependent or if there's a logical grouping. This might make it look less like one person saturating an area (if indeed that is the issue). By submitting them gradually, you can make a good case that you've allowed plenty of opportunity for other hiders.

 

I do however wish you would try to use more small and regular, rather than micro, caches. As others have said, there's nothing wrong with micros in their place. But when I make a strenuous hike to a cache site, I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time trying to find the cache. I've DNF-ed a number of caches simply because I was out for a hike and when I didn't find the cache in two or three minutes, I said let's get on with the hike. I seldom trade swag, but I do like reading log books, and micro logs are booooooring. Is it really that hard to place a regular cache? I've used stone-textured spray paint on ammo cans to help camouflage them -- it won't protect them in a high muggle area, but I have led a dozen muggles on a hike where they all passed within 15 feet of two easily visible ammo cans, and none of them noticed either cache. I have to agree with others that although your choice of hiding spots may show a lot of creativity and lead seekers to beautiful spots, that you could probably do better in terms of container variety.

 

BTW, I googled Gooding Little City of Rocks ... not many hits, but I'd certainly be interested in a visit, if I ever get a chance. So this thread has already taught me about another place I'd like to go.

 

Edward

[+Rockin Roddy]

Personally, I find it VERY disappointing to go to a park or an area and find that almost all of the caches in the area were placed by the same one hider.

I enjoy the variety that different hiders can give to the game.

And I would hope that there are some folks out there who are kind enough to the rest of the community to leave a little space for the rest of us to have somewhere to hide a cache.

If the reviewers are helping to keep the game alive by letting more than just one hider place in a given area, then KUDOS to them!

Is it really necessary to take all the hiding places in the same area for yourself? Thereby saturating the area in a way that no one else can hide there?

New cachers join the game every day. How about leaving a few places for them to put some hides?

 

Maybe the park was introduced to caching by the person who's doing all the hiding there...sometimes, this is the reward for working closely with the management of the park! Some parks like the idea of having one person responsible for the area, someone they trust and know will work with them...one that'll watch over the park or even park system and report any problems or work them out before becoming a problem!

 

That said, if someone were to ask me for permission to place a cache in one of the parks I have exclusive hiding rights to, I'd welcome it and even give assistance if asked!! I'd also question any caches placed and make sure permission has been given! It just recently happened in fact!

 

OT, this is something only TPTB can answer, you should contact them again.

[+WRASTRO]

why would 31 caches hidden in a 2400 + acre area be considered oversaturation?

The only truly on-topic comment I have is ...

 

It's not really the size of the area that matters, but the cacheable area. Are the caches all along trails? If so, then the total trail length is a better indicator, and even that number should be reduced where trails are close enough to interfere in terms of cache concentration.

 

The rest is indirectly related to the topic ...

 

When I see 237 hides and 900 finds, that sets off a red flag. Such a ratio needs explanation. Remember that there's a global find/hide ratio. Hiding more caches, in the global view, results in fewer finds/cache. I'm sure that in the Early Days, the opposite was true -- needed more caches to encourage people to go caching. Probably true in many locales still. Now, more caches generally doesn't result in more finds, just fewer finds/cache. In general, if your find/hide ratio is lower than the number of lifetime finds you'd like to see on the caches you place, you have some explaining to do.

That said, I think you've presented a good case for a low find/hide ratio in your situation. Most finders in the area will be visitors, and thus local cachers would reasonably be placing caches for visitors, thus decreasing the find/hide ratio of local cachers. You might be able to use this argument with the reviewers (no guarantee). Of the nine caches for which you listed stats, they are receiving a decent number of finds. If most of the finders are visitors to the area, this would support your argument that more hides by locals are warranted. (I have not attempted to count visitors, nor have I look up the find counts on the other caches you list.)

 

I gather that you are trying to get 13 caches approved all at once. This may (may) also be setting off flags for the reviewers. I would take the approach of getting them approved at the rate of about one per month -- just submit one each month if they are independent, or submit them in small batches if they are dependent or if there's a logical grouping. This might make it look less like one person saturating an area (if indeed that is the issue). By submitting them gradually, you can make a good case that you've allowed plenty of opportunity for other hiders.

 

I do however wish you would try to use more small and regular, rather than micro, caches. As others have said, there's nothing wrong with micros in their place. But when I make a strenuous hike to a cache site, I'm really not interested in spending a lot of time trying to find the cache. I've DNF-ed a number of caches simply because I was out for a hike and when I didn't find the cache in two or three minutes, I said let's get on with the hike. I seldom trade swag, but I do like reading log books, and micro logs are booooooring. Is it really that hard to place a regular cache? I've used stone-textured spray paint on ammo cans to help camouflage them -- it won't protect them in a high muggle area, but I have led a dozen muggles on a hike where they all passed within 15 feet of two easily visible ammo cans, and none of them noticed either cache. I have to agree with others that although your choice of hiding spots may show a lot of creativity and lead seekers to beautiful spots, that you could probably do better in terms of container variety.

 

BTW, I googled Gooding Little City of Rocks ... not many hits, but I'd certainly be interested in a visit, if I ever get a chance. So this thread has already taught me about another place I'd like to go.

 

Edward

I've got to say that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you reference global find/hide ratios. Did I miss a memo somewhere? I tried hard but I really can't decipher the meaning of this portion of your post. Will you help me out?

[+briansnat]

When I see 237 hides and 900 finds, that sets off a red flag. Such a ratio needs explanation.

 

Huh? Red flag? For what? Maybe the fact that he likes hiding caches would be a good explanation. I'd hate to see what you'd say about my ratio.

[+paleolith]

I've got to say that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you reference global find/hide ratios. Did I miss a memo somewhere? I tried hard but I really can't decipher the meaning of this portion of your post. Will you help me out?

Answered over here to avoid going further off topic in this thread.

 

When I see 237 hides and 900 finds, that sets off a red flag. Such a ratio needs explanation.

Huh? Red flag? For what? Maybe the fact that he likes hiding caches would be a good explanation. I'd hate to see what you'd say about my ratio.

Perhaps I should have said yellow flag rather than red flag. I agree that there can be perfectly good explanations, and in my post I mentioned one possible explanation (a different explanation from your example) for the case under discussion in this thread: that the hider lives in an area where most finders are visitors (vacationers).

 

But there's also the possibility of a cacher trying to compete by hiding a lot of caches -- the issue implied by the thread title. And certainly there are cases where cachers have hidden more caches than they can maintain, whether that number is one or a thousand and no matter what their find/hide ratio is. I don't even have any data on which to base a belief that the find/hide ratio affects attention to maintenance. But it's something I keep my eye on.

 

Edward

[+DaveEllen]

...if they are being made impartially.

There ya go. There are different reviewers throughout the country and they all have slightly differing interpretations of the guidelines and have different criteria for giving their blessings to listings. IIRC, there was more going on with your caches than mere saturation.

[+DaveEllen]

...if they are being made impartially.

There ya go. There are different reviewers throughout the country and they all have slightly differing interpretations of the guidelines and have different criteria for giving their blessings to listings. IIRC, there was more going on with your caches than mere saturation.

We feel for you. We are having this trouble in our area with a very stubborn reviewer. They want others to place caches and there have only been 4 new caches in our area plus ours since January.. we thought we were doing something nice for the visitors to our area and also the cachers in our area.so they will not have to spend so much money on gas now that it going to the extreme. Also lots of caches close for families with little kids so they can walk it and keep the kids interested. Long distance ones do not keep kids interest.

We have 14 caches on the Olympic Discovery Trail which will be 100 miles long when finished. We don;t feel this is too many on this trail but someone does!