Cache density and multi vs traditional

[+H2"O"]

I recently placed ten caches in a park near my home. The distances between them are all certainly over the .1 guideline as the crow flies and double that on the trail. The total hike is between 4 and 5 miles in my opinion, that is nowhere near saturation. The available woodland in my area is very limited so we need to make the best use of it and the only other option is urban micros (they're fine, but not what we want to hide). The reviewer feels that this constitutes saturation and has suggested combining them into two or three multis...so what is the difference besides the fact that I will get one third as many visitors to my caches. There will still be ten boxes in the woods, there will still be cachers searching in ten places, and if one stage goes missing, the cacher goes home disappointed. If one cache in a series of ten goes missing, the cacher is still able to find the other nine. I just don't understand that reasoning and how it serves the best interest of the game.

[+Kit Fox]

I recently placed ten caches in a park near my home. The distances between them are all certainly over the .1 guideline as the crow flies and double that on the trail. The total hike is between 4 and 5 miles in my opinion, that is nowhere near saturation. The available woodland in my area is very limited so we need to make the best use of it and the only other option is urban micros (they're fine, but not what we want to hide). The reviewer feels that this constitutes saturation and has suggested combining them into two or three multis...so what is the difference besides the fact that I will get one third as many visitors to my caches. There will still be ten boxes in the woods, there will still be cachers searching in ten places, and if one stage goes missing, the cacher goes home disappointed. If one cache in a series of ten goes missing, the cacher is still able to find the other nine. I just don't understand that reasoning and how it serves the best interest of the game.

 

My take on this is that multis are an optical "illusion," meant to trick land managers. When a land manager sees the map of the area that he is responsible for, he either sees a few multis, or ten traditionals. I think it is all about appearance.

 

Why does the area need ten caches? Can't you highlight the best spots with a few caches?

[+H2"O"]

Our area has been taken over by guardrail and lightskirt caches etc (not that there's anything wrong with that). We desperately want to re-introduce woodland caching and there is not much woodland to work with. We like to get cachers from outside our area to come get em and three or four caches will not get anyone to drive 30 or 40 miles, but ten might. I could go on.

[+Harry Dolphin]

A new concern seems to be 'power trails'. That's probably what the reviewer is trying to address. I don't know what the answer is. Convince him that all ten are beautiful and unique locations deserving of a cache?

[+gof1]

Why does the area need ten caches?

 

My first thought.

 

A cache every tenth of a mile or so sounds like a power trail to me.

[+H2"O"]

I did that, I sent him a list of seven reasons to justify the series including descriptions, the fact that this is not an easy 4.5 mile hike and ten caches is a justifiable number. The locations are mostly unique, interesting and/or beautiful spots. They are all good hides, but he seems bent on making it into a couple of multis.

[+H2"O"]

Why does the area need ten caches?

 

My first thought.

 

A cache every tenth of a mile or so sounds like a power trail to me.

 

The caches are more than a tenth as the crow flies and the whole loop is 4.5 miles through rugged rocky hills...it's no power trail!

[+Lil Devil]

 

Smells like a power trail to me.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

My thought would be put out half of them now and then see what happens and then see if the other 5 are needed later.

[+3doxies]

I tend to agree with MMs approach...put a few spaced ones out now, then wait a bit and see if putting more seems justified. It seems that, in addition to the number of caches in any given segment, the timing of those placements (ie, all-at-once vs spaced out) might be important in determing if this would constitute a "power trail"....dunno the actual definition of a power trail, though.

[+H2"O"]

Yeah, we're discussing that now.

Thanks

[+gof1]

I'm sorry. I can understand what your point is and can sympathize with your feelings. But, I have to agree with the reviewer. With the current way that GC.com has told reviewers to treat "power trails" this is a questionable set of caches. I will have to admit that this opinion is based on information gleaned from these forums over the past few months.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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 multi-cache.

Sounds like a multicache to me.

[+mrbort]

My take on this is maybe a little different... I think that finding an actual cache complete with a log and swag is much more satisfying and interesting than a stage of a multi. If these caches are outside the nominal density range and are part of the limited woodland system, to me it just means that there are more quality caches and more reason to explore that area. Perhaps instead of spacing them out at the miniumum distance, pick the best spots, most interesting places that would allow you to maybe place 7 rather than 10 of the caches. You'd still have a significant number of caches in your limited woodland but it would maybe just on a map look less like a power trail. You stated that it's around a 5 mile hike -- that's no power trail if it's done on foot (which it would have to be)... You can easily rack up many many more than 10 caches that are LPCs or guardrails in urban caching. I think that you have a neat plan to reintroduce outdoors to the local caching community and hopefully entice others to come for a visit

[+tozainamboku]

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 multi-cache.

Sounds like a multicache to me.

It's not so clear to me. If the OP has a reason that they need a person to stop every .1 miles along the trail (hard to follow the trail, many junctions that aren't obvious which way you should go, or just spectacular scenery down little side trails less than .1 mile apart that they don't want you to miss) then it sounds like a good reason for a multicache. Otherwise I would just put out fewer caches. I decided when I started that I would only hide hiking caches. So I have a lot fewer hides then people who hide lots of urban micros. Sometimes where I've put out one or two caches on a trail someone else comes along and hides one or two more. Eventually there are 10 new caches on the trail and I have a excuse to do maintenance on my caches. Conversely, someone finds a new trail and hides a couple of caches on it. I may enjoy the hike and want to added a cache or two. If they made a powertrail then that option may not be available. Similarly if they made it a multi it might end up blocking some good spots. So if it is multi, I hope there is a better reason than to just avoid the saturation rule.

Edited April 14, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Don_J]

Why does the area need ten caches?

 

My first thought.

 

A cache every tenth of a mile or so sounds like a power trail to me.

 

My math shows it as a cache about every half of a mile. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

There are two issues here, power trails, but more importantly to me, is the issue as to why, (for example), a cacher placing four caches over two miles of trail should be forced to do it as a multi. The OP said it best, in his case, there are still ten boxes on the trail, and if he is forced to convert those ten boxes into two or three multi-caches, the chances of a missing box spoiling the cache seekers adventure increases.

[+Don_J]

My thought would be put out half of them now and then see what happens and then see if the other 5 are needed later.

 

I stand by what I said in my other post, ten caches over five miles should be okay, especially in rocky terrain, as the OP has indicated.

 

However, I probably would have put out four of five. In the next few weeks, the cachers that look for them usually end up putting out the other five, then I can go and hike the trail again, check on my caches and find theirs. That's the MO around here. In fact, we have a running joke about it.

 

(edit, spelling)

Edited April 14, 2009 by Don_J

[Motorcycle_Mama]

My thought was why do 10 caches all need to be placed out at the same time in the same area? Half now and half later seems like a better option.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

My thought would be put out half of them now and then see what happens and then see if the other 5 are needed later.

 

I agree with this approach as well. If, as you state, your intent is to get more people out into wooded areas to find caches, that also might have the side effect of getting other hiders to place caches in wooded areas. If you saturate the limited number of wooded areas you have available with you're own caches you're not going to leave room for other hiders to place caches in wooded areas so they're just going to continue placing them on guardrails.

 

BTW, I have friends that live in Yonkers that I haven't visited in awhile so I might just be able to find some of those new caches.

[+sbell111]

A new concern seems to be 'power trails'. That's probably what the reviewer is trying to address. I don't know what the answer is. Convince him that all ten are beautiful and unique locations deserving of a cache?

A new concern? The controlling guideline has been around at least since 2003. It may actually be from the first set of guidelines. Reviewers have certainly been choosing not to list power trails since at least 2005.

[CoyoteRed]

My thought was why do 10 caches all need to be placed out at the same time in the same area? Half now and half later seems like a better option.

Only if the area is really worth re-visiting.

 

If I'm traveling any sort of distance and have found all of the caches I wanted in an area, then just a short time later a few more pop up, I feel a bit perturbed. I was just there. If I knew the cache owner was waiting to place them because of a manipulation of the guidelines I feel even less happy about it.

 

Now if these ten caches were pared back to say 5 of the best spots, then the hike may even be better. But then, if the other 5 spots, which weren't nearly as good as the first five, were put in place and we were brought back expecting a repeat of the first trip, we'd probably be disappointed.

 

Last thing, it's kind of hard to believe that unless this is a brand new trail that there aren't other caches on this trail already. If that's the case and depending on how many caches are already on the trail, then ten may be too many even given the 528' rule. We probably don't have enough information to make a judgment here in the forums.

 

Heck, if nothing else list only a few here and the rest on an alternate site.

[+Renegade Knight]

I recently placed ten caches in a park near my home. The distances between them are all certainly over the .1 guideline as the crow flies and double that on the trail. The total hike is between 4 and 5 miles in my opinion, that is nowhere near saturation. The available woodland in my area is very limited so we need to make the best use of it and the only other option is urban micros (they're fine, but not what we want to hide). The reviewer feels that this constitutes saturation and has suggested combining them into two or three multis...so what is the difference besides the fact that I will get one third as many visitors to my caches. There will still be ten boxes in the woods, there will still be cachers searching in ten places, and if one stage goes missing, the cacher goes home disappointed. If one cache in a series of ten goes missing, the cacher is still able to find the other nine. I just don't understand that reasoning and how it serves the best interest of the game.

 

It's an artificial solution to an artificial problem that's left to the opinion of a reviewer. Nobody has been able to define it in a way that's clear so you and I as cache owners can actually follow it. The beauty of the rule is that even if a land manager says "hey, this is great, place them all!" It doesn't matter.

 

While I speak out against such artifical rules (which results in real angst) I'm not inclined to modify perfectly good caches to comply. In your shoes I'd ask your reviewer "which ones can I list as I intended as traditinal caches?" There is an answer. The rest I'd list on another site and call it a day. True the others will get less finds, but the ones listed as intended will get about as many as they would have.

 

You are correct that folks won't want to find a multi cache and you will get less finds overall with that solution. Besides like others have pointed out. It doesnt' really change anything. There are just as many caches out there, and now others are blocked out and don't even know it. I think it creates more problems than it solves. Thats in addition to rubbing the owners nose in the arbitrary nature of the whole thing to begin with.

[+Renegade Knight]

My thought was why do 10 caches all need to be placed out at the same time in the same area? Half now and half later seems like a better option.

 

Spending twice the time and gas for the same result is better? That's less time that will be available to spend maintaining or finding caches in general.

 

If you can get a different result listing half now and half later, or if 10 cachers each place one cache, it merely proves the artificial and arbitrary nature of the rule.

[+StarBrand]

There are 2 parts to the saturation guideline - the second is often forgotten or ignored.

 

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 multi-cache.

 

I think that clause easily explains the reviewers decision. No need to discuss it - your own description I think closely follws the definition above.

[+H2"O"]

I gained a lot of insight throught this thread. The issue has been resolved with the removal of four of the ten caches. Unfortunately, that reduces the length of the loop drastically, but it's still a nice "LITTLE" loop. Also, after returning to remove the four, I realized that it probably could be seen as a power trail even though parts of the loop were somewhat tough hiking...not all that tough though.

Thanks to all for the input!