Jump to content

This Week's Sign the Apocalypse is Approaching


Tequila

Recommended Posts

I decided to redo my pocket queries in order to maximize coverage. Took the recommendation in another forum to use "date placed" as the selection criteria.

 

Excluding caches I have already found, the following provides some food for thought.

 

Using my house in Markham as the centre point,

 

Placed prior to Dec 31 2005, 500 caches gives me a radius of 147 km

Placed during 2005, 500 caches gives me a radius of 215 km

Placed during 2006, 500 caches gives me a radius of 106 km

Placed during the first half of 2007, 500 caches gives me a radius of 111 km

Placed during the second half of 2007, 500 caches gives me a radius of 99 km

Placed during the first half of 2008, 500 caches gives me a radius of 85 km.

 

These stats would be far more scary if I factored in the 1300 caches I have found since January 1 2007, 90% of which would be within 100 km of my house.

Link to comment

 

Using my house in Markham as the centre point,......(snip).....

 

Well, since I, and a couple of other newcomers have been geocachers since only 2006, the cache density of Parry Sound District has multiplied by a factor of at least 100.

 

Please feel free to visit us up here in the Near North and place a few caches. I'm going broke with buying the gas to travel down to your area and grab a few new ones. wah.gif

Edit: Oops! My smiley didn't show properly. It is an attempt at humour if you can't see it.

Edited by Team Magic
Link to comment

 

Using my house in Markham as the centre point,......(snip).....

 

Well, since I, and a couple of other newcomers have been geocachers since only 2006, the cache density of Parry Sound District has multiplied by a factor of at least 100.

 

Please feel free to visit us up here in the Near North and place a few caches. I'm going broke with buying the gas to travel down to your area and grab a few new ones. wah.gif

Edit: Oops! My smiley didn't show properly. It is an attempt at humour if you can't see it.

 

Did you want me to sign you in at a bunch of our Home Depot drive ups???? :huh:

Link to comment

This is the list of dates required to keep MOST of BC (excluding the 731 I have found) up to date with PQ:

 

You can see the length of time that about 500 caches covers.

 

Placed by date PQ Generation

PQ From To Count

01 2/2/2001 5/4/2003 494

02 5/5/2003 5/17/2004 494

03 5/18/2004 3/26/2005 495

04 3/27/2005 9/10/2005 492

05 9/11/2005 2/24/2006 478

06 2/25/2006 5/31/2006 494

07 6/1/2006 9/6/2006 492

08 9/7/2006 2/6/2007 494

09 2/7/2007 4/8/2007 485

10 4/9/2007 6/10/2007 486

11 6/11/2007 8/24/2007 495

12 8/25/2007 11/22/2007 495

13 11/23/2007 3/6/2008 494

14 3/7/2008 4/26/2008 492

15 4/27/2008 6/21/2008 493

16 6/22/2008 Maximum date 154

Link to comment

I decided to redo my pocket queries in order to maximize coverage. Took the recommendation in another forum to use "date placed" as the selection criteria.

 

Excluding caches I have already found, the following provides some food for thought.

 

Using my house in Markham as the centre point,

 

Placed prior to Dec 31 2005, 500 caches gives me a radius of 147 km

Placed during 2005, 500 caches gives me a radius of 215 km

Placed during 2006, 500 caches gives me a radius of 106 km

Placed during the first half of 2007, 500 caches gives me a radius of 111 km

Placed during the second half of 2007, 500 caches gives me a radius of 99 km

Placed during the first half of 2008, 500 caches gives me a radius of 85 km.

 

These stats would be far more scary if I factored in the 1300 caches I have found since January 1 2007, 90% of which would be within 100 km of my house.

 

Does this mean the cache count is going down, or are you just finding more?

Link to comment

Since I only have 1900 finds and I have found 1300 of them in the past 18 months, obviously, I am finding more.

 

But my real point was how fast cache saturation is occurring.

 

When I started caching 7 years ago, the closest cache to Markham was Shortcut to the Old Cabin, almost 80 km away.

 

Now, I have 484 within 20km and that same 80 km zone has over 3000 caches.

 

The stats don't reflect it, because of my finds, but I was trying to show how the length of time required to get to 500 caches placed keeps going down.

Edited by Tequila
Link to comment

Ease of caching was not the point of my discussion. My point is how cache saturation is occurring. And the speed with which new caches are being published. I am sure the cache approvers can attest to that.

 

What triggered this for me was my Wherigo, The Mad Trapper of Rouge River. In laying it out, I discovered that the entire Rouge Valley, from Metro Zoo south to the Twin Rivers parking lot and south of that, is completely saturated. There is no area where a new cache can be put that it won't be within 160 meters of an existing cache.

 

I was able to find a virgin area further north in the Rouge for the Wherigo.

 

Another highlight of this is how the Wherigo can be used to put out a complex, multi stage cache without consuming large tracts of land. Mad Trapper is a 16 km hike with 10 stages, but only 3 of them have physical containers and therefore affecting saturation. The others are virtual spots where the player has to do something or count an existing number of something.

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...