How much space does one geocache take with current quidelines

[docbosh]

This is not an arguement, but a presentation of some facts...

 

One single cache takes up over 89,000 square feet of space, that is a hair over two acres.

 

The Island of Montreal (where I live) is 193 square miles in area.

 

Meaning that in theory the island could hold almost 62,000 caches.

 

Sounds impressive, until you consider the spaces that are created by unevenly place caches (which is their nature)... The truth is probably more like 30,000 caches. Equally impressive, approximately one cache for every 100 people in population.

 

Currently there are reported to me by those who can count, about 1,800 caches in Montreal, one for every 1667 people. Cool, still lots of room to expand in... yes, but if and only if you place them in thoroughly mundane areas as well as the interesting places like parks. By parks in this case I mean large regional parks instead of playgrounds (which appear on the fringe of acceptable for cache placement).

 

I understand the theory of cache placement, some one else got there first, and it's first come first serve.

 

Well sure, but in this case, unless the person who placed them retrieves them and takes them offline, the person is standing in line forever.

 

In my area in 2007 one person blitzed evry nook and cranny of those large regional parks, placed at almost perfect saturation, leaving little room in the interesting places to go get caches.

 

Now lets be honest for a moment, what do you prefer to go find caches in parks, or caches in front of peoples homes?

 

OK well there are already plenty of caches on the island of Montreal as it is so why worry. No worry, only as the activity grows (I prefer this word over sport, because for some it is sport, and for others it is not), new players aren't able to play on an even playing field.

 

Does geocaching dot com actively ask geocachers who have placed caches that are 2, 3, 4 or more years old to relinquish the space for potentially new caches? I bet a majority of you think the idea is absurd, but is it really? After a while isn't a new set up worth while? Doesn't it allow those spaces that have been visited a lot to recover? Doesn't it give new and existing players new and exciting possibilities?

 

Even in professional sport, they eventually retire making way for the new up and comers.

 

Just some food for thought, to those who think that everything in the geocaching world is all hunky dorey.

 

My food for thought comes with open ended debate questions, feel free as I know you will to debate for or against the ideas of.

 

Saturation zones, taking as much into consideration as possible, including density and elevation (topography) that dials the .1 of a mile rule up or down accordingly.

 

A predetermined shelf life for caches, or a limit on cache exculsivity after a certain amount of time. Including the idea of voluntary retrevial.

 

Review of mystery and multicaches to place certain limits on them.

Edited August 13, 2009 by docbosh

[LEAD DOG]

Did someone place a cache where you wanted to?????

[+Mr. 0]

 

Now lets be honest for a moment, what do you prefer to go find caches in parks, or caches in front of peoples homes?

 

Does geocaching dot com actively ask geocachers who have placed caches that are 2, 3, 4 or more years old to relinquish the space for potentially new caches? I bet a majority of you think the idea is absurd, but is it really? After a while isn't a new set up worth while? Doesn't it allow those spaces that have been visited a lot to recover? Doesn't it give new and existing players new and exciting possibilities?

 

Even in professional sport, they eventually retire making way for the new up and comers.

 

 

I enjoy caches in parks far more than caches in front of someone's house, or a strip mall...of course. However on the other hand some parks can be plenty boring as well.

 

Let's say someone places a cache somewhere that's a 3 hour hike from the car. On top of that they spend another hour finding the perfect spot with a great view, and even more time camoing a container to fit the area. They go out there several times over the course of a few weeks to get good averaged coordinates. They take my time to write up a nice description of the history of the area, and submit it to the approvers. Over time it becomes a favorite cache for some folks.

 

2 years later the original owner is required to archive the cache. Joe Geocacher then comes along a couple of days later, places a cache in the exact same spot using an altoids tin and copies and pastes all the info from the original cache page. How is that doing the spot justice, and how is "fair" to the original cache owner? It just becomes a cheap knockoff of the original because someone wanted to increase their hide numbers, and wanted to own a "cool cache." Some people are going to re-visit the area just to get it off their list, and get another smiley. Nothing "new and exciting" about that.

 

The only purpose that serves is to artifically inflate one's numbers. If I visit a cache that's in an interesting area, I will go back regardless if there is a new cache there. I don't need a smiley to enjoy a nice hike or a good place to picnic, or whatever.

 

Similarly why make someone archive a LPC just to have someone else sitck another cache there that's exactly the same? There's nothing "new and exciting" about that either.

 

Yes, pro athletes retire, but the NHL, for example, doesn't force the Detroit Red Wings to completely disband just so the Detroit Blue Fins can start up as a new team in the same arena.

[+hudsonfam]

 

Does geocaching dot com actively ask geocachers who have placed caches that are 2, 3, 4 or more years old to relinquish the space for potentially new caches? I bet a majority of you think the idea is absurd, but is it really? After a while isn't a new set up worth while? Doesn't it allow those spaces that have been visited a lot to recover? Doesn't it give new and existing players new and exciting possibilities?

 

 

While most of your post sounded more like the typical "it's not fair" whine because someone else got to the "good spots" before you, I do definitely agree with the above statement about allowing the environment to rest once it has been visited frequently over an extended period of time. I hadn't thought of that before and I think it's a very valid point. Especially since some of our fellow GCers have proven that they are not inclined to "tread lightly" and some have caused considerable damage in some areas, as is currently being discussed in another thread.

 

But, the rest of your post seemed to state that you're disappointed that someone placed a cache where you wanted to. Isn't the point to make caches available in fun areas to visit, no matter who placed them? If someone else has already provided that service to their fellow GCers (including YOU), great! This is where competition arises in this activity that really isn't healthy. It's not a me vs. you thing - it's supposed to be a we/us all working together thing.

 

If you really search your local area, which currently contains less than 2000 caches according to your information, I hardly think you can't find any interesting or cool locations left to place a cache. You may just have to explore areas you've never been in and branch out a bit. During our short time of geocaching, we've already discovered 3 beautifully hidden areas that we never knew existed and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for someone placing a cache there. Everyone already knows about state parks and public areas - find somewhere truly unique!

 

-K

[+hudsonfam]

 

Let's say someone places a cache somewhere that's a 3 hour hike from the car. On top of that they spend another hour finding the perfect spot with a great view, and even more time camoing a container to fit the area. They go out there several times over the course of a few weeks to get good averaged coordinates. They take my time to write up a nice description of the history of the area, and submit it to the approvers. Over time it becomes a favorite cache for some folks.

 

2 years later the original owner is required to archive the cache. Joe Geocacher then comes along a couple of days later, places a cache in the exact same spot using an altoids tin and copies and pastes all the info from the original cache page. How is that doing the spot justice, and how is "fair" to the original cache owner?

 

If I understood correctly, the OP meant that those particular coordinates would be "retired" as well, and a new cache would not be allowed to be placed there for a couple of years at least, in order to allow the environment to rest and recover from all the traffic. But by removing that cache, it opens up a new plot of possible land maybe an acre or so away.

[+StarBrand]

I see no reason to automatically archive a cache from owner A simply to let Owner B move in and place a cache. Sounds like a pointless exercise just to get a new smiley added to your count.

 

I have several 7+ year old caches that are getting more visits these days than in any year past. Certainly makes it sound like a very viable cache location with no reason to close up shop.

 

If you cannot find a "fun" and interesting location in which to hide a new cache - feel free to not hide one. I would not want to search for one that the owner really did not care to set out.

 

As for the "level" playing fied. You cannot go back - it will never be new and level. When I started there were 5 caches within 100 miles of my home. Only 1 within 60 miles. No place (in Norrth America anyway) will ever see that kind of total openess for cache placements again.

[knowschad]

If I understood correctly, the OP meant that those particular coordinates would be "retired" as well, and a new cache would not be allowed to be placed there for a couple of years at least, in order to allow the environment to rest and recover from all the traffic. But by removing that cache, it opens up a new plot of possible land maybe an acre or so away.

 

That is not the way I understood it. I believe the OP's assumption was that the area would be allowed "to rest" simply because that cache was gone, assuming that the new cache would be hidden in a significantly different spot (which, in my experience, is not neccessarily the case. Good areas for caches tend to attract cache hides to those areas)

[+MountainRacer]

No one bothered to check this guy's numbers?

 

Minimum cache separation (radius) = .1 mi. = 528 ft.

Area of a circle = radius x pi.

528 ft. x 3.14159 = 1659 sq.ft. occupied per cache

 

That's such a far cry from "one single cache takes up over 89,000 square feet of space" that I'm inclined to dismiss the rest of his reasoning as grossly misguided. (Yes, I know that circles don't tessellate, so each cache would realistically require a bit more space than the figure I produced, but not fifty times as much space.) There are still an awful lot of nice places out in the world -- which is rather large, after all -- that aren't quite saturated yet.

 

Oh, and it may be viewed as impolite to say this, but maybe he should find a bit more than twenty caches before he goes off making judgements about the state of the caching world.

[J.A.R.S.]

If I understood correctly, the OP meant that those particular coordinates would be "retired" as well, and a new cache would not be allowed to be placed there for a couple of years at least, in order to allow the environment to rest and recover from all the traffic. But by removing that cache, it opens up a new plot of possible land maybe an acre or so away.

 

That is not the way I understood it. I believe the OP's assumption was that the area would be allowed "to rest" simply because that cache was gone, assuming that the new cache would be hidden in a significantly different spot (which, in my experience, is not neccessarily the case. Good areas for caches tend to attract cache hides to those areas)

 

That's been my experience. After archiving a 5 year old cache at a local architecturally significant structure in a scenic location, a new cache was posted about a week later. It is a better hide then I had placed and at the opposite side of the structure. I enjoyed the new find. Part of what I like about geocaching it the hide n seek aspect, it's fun, it's not about the numbers for me. Plus it was interesting to see that someone could find another good (actually better) hiding spot. It brought people back for another visit after 5 years - sometimes people need the excuse of a cache to re-visit a spot. And the hide gave them a different perspective of the structure. I'm all for limited cache placements, it doesn't feel fair not to share the fun of hiding with new geocachers. I'm thinking 3-5 years is a good time limit.

[+Rose-Hulman]

No one bothered to check this guy's numbers?

 

Minimum cache separation (radius) = .1 mi. = 528 ft.

Area of a circle = radius x pi.

528 ft. x 3.14159 = 1659 sq.ft. occupied per cache

 

That's such a far cry from "one single cache takes up over 89,000 square feet of space" that I'm inclined to dismiss the rest of his reasoning as grossly misguided. (Yes, I know that circles don't tessellate, so each cache would realistically require a bit more space than the figure I produced, but not fifty times as much space.) There are still an awful lot of nice places out in the world -- which is rather large, after all -- that aren't quite saturated yet.

 

Oh, and it may be viewed as impolite to say this, but maybe he should find a bit more than twenty caches before he goes off making judgements about the state of the caching world.

 

Ummm area of a circle is PiR^2 So actually, 528x528x3.14159= 875,825 sq. ft.

[+Lil Devil]

One single cache takes up over 89,000 square feet of space, that is a hair over two acres.

No one bothered to check this guy's numbers?

 

Minimum cache separation (radius) = .1 mi. = 528 ft.

Area of a circle = radius x pi.

528 ft. x 3.14159 = 1659 sq.ft. occupied per cache

Strange, I get yet a different number.

First the equation is actually:

Area of a circle = radius squared x pi

 

528 ft. x 528 ft. x 3.14159 = 875,825 square feet = 20.1 acres.

[+jhauser42]

No one bothered to check this guy's numbers?

 

Minimum cache separation (radius) = .1 mi. = 528 ft.

Area of a circle = radius x pi.

528 ft. x 3.14159 = 1659 sq.ft. occupied per cache

 

 

Actually, the formula is:

 

A = pi x r squared

 

or

 

A = 3.14159 x 528 x 528 = 875,825 sq ft.

 

See here for a circle calculator.

[PastorJon]

 

 

Ummm area of a circle is PiR^2 So actually, 528x528x3.14159= 875,825 sq. ft.

 

^^^^^

 

Yup.

 

Beat me to it.

[+Chrysalides]

Saturation zones, taking as much into consideration as possible, including density and elevation (topography) that dials the .1 of a mile rule up or down accordingly.

 

A predetermined shelf life for caches, or a limit on cache exculsivity after a certain amount of time. Including the idea of voluntary retrevial.

 

Review of mystery and multicaches to place certain limits on them.

I'm a newcomer. I've had cache placements in what I thought were interesting places denied because of nearby caches. But I'm against your proposals.

 

A cache with a problem should be archived. One that is in good condition, why in Hades should it be archived just so someone else can hide a possibly less interesting cache? Personally I enjoy finding the older caches.

 

Reviewers do make allowance for caches closer than 0.1 miles. Usually it is because of terrain - your two caches may require a hike longer than 0.1 miles between them due to natural obstacles. It is up to you to present your case to them and convince them.

 

What limits are you proposing for mysteries and multistages?

[+Renegade Knight]

...A predetermined shelf life for caches, or a limit on cache exculsivity after a certain amount of time. Including the idea of voluntary retrevial....

 

Caches do have a natural life span. That would be when most who would seek it have done so. The time it takes to reach this point varies quit a bit and can't be predetermined with any degree of accuracy. Thus the present system of letting the owner archive it when it's time is done is both simple and right.

 

I had a local talk to me about archiving a cache that's been in place for about 4 or 5 years. It gets about 3 or 4 finds in a good year. It's no where near the end of it's natural life span. They wanted to place a cache in the area so it could essentially get about the same number of finds as mine. Their argument was simple. "yours don't get found much, must be used up". Reality is the opposite. Nothing there would get found much giving a lot of longevity to the location.

[+Renegade Knight]

...528 ft. x 528 ft. x 3.14159 = 875,825 square feet = 20.1 acres.

 

I had this idea for a cache that would be called " breeder reactor" that would illistrate the nature of fusion. It would have been a seed cache (before they were discouraged). The BLM had a large parcel of unused ground that was perfect. One day I did the math, and found I could get all of 4 caches or so on that large spot of ground. So much for that idea. I would have needed square miles to pull off the concept.

[+J-Way]

That's if you're dealing with circles. The max 2D density with a 528-ft separation is a triangular/hexagonal arrangement:

Green circles are the 528-ft radius, with caches at the center of each circle. Assuming an infinite 2D layout (neglecting border or edge affects), a perfectly laid out grid of caches means that each cache "uses up" 241,434 sq. ft., or 22,430 sq. m, or 5.54 acres.

 

[Edit to reduce the size of the image, and add the comments below.]

 

Anywho, back on subject, some locations do have a "shelf life" for caches. For example, some US state parks have a permit system in place. You have to fill out a permit for every cache placed, and it expires in 1 year. At the end of the year you have to apply again. The re-application might be approved, it might be denied.

 

In a high-volume, high-traffic area (such as a regional park near a large city), mandatory re-application of caching permits might be a good thing. If an area shows excessive wear after a year, shut down the cache and give the area time to heal. Someone else can place a new cache a few hundred yards away in the meantime, which itself expires in a year.

 

In other areas there is no need for this. Especially if the cache hider picked a good, rugged location that can handle lots of traffic, or picked a location that doesn't get much traffic.

 

Either way, I doubt Groundspeak will EVER implement a world-wide system like this.

Edited August 13, 2009 by J-Way

[+StarBrand]

In a perfect world (avoiding packing issues) since each cache circle can overlap other circles - each cache only reserves exclusively for itself a circlular area 1/2 of the 528 radius guideline. Thus 264^2 times pi = 218954.8 square feet.

[docbosh]

Did someone place a cache where you wanted to?????

 

No, honest this is open discussion.

 

I have some issues that I wonder about.

[+bittsen]

No, honest this is open discussion.

 

I have some issues that I wonder about.

 

In a perfect world (avoiding packing issues) since each cache circle can overlap other circles - each cache only reserves exclusively for itself a circlular area 1/2 of the 528 radius guideline. Thus 264^2 times pi = 218954.8 square feet.

Your calcs are a bit incorrect. 528 feet IS the radius.

 

One geocache takes approximately 875,828 square feet.

Edited August 13, 2009 by bittsen

[+wimseyguy]

Did someone place a cache where you wanted to?????

No, Well, yes someone did and I asked about it in this thread. But I'm starting another thread for some honest this is open discussion in general on the topic of saturation (again).

 

I have some issues that I wonder about.

 

There-fixed it for ya.

You want honest straight talk in here, you should be prepared to give some too.

[docbosh]

 

Now lets be honest for a moment, what do you prefer to go find caches in parks, or caches in front of peoples homes?

 

Does geocaching dot com actively ask geocachers who have placed caches that are 2, 3, 4 or more years old to relinquish the space for potentially new caches? I bet a majority of you think the idea is absurd, but is it really? After a while isn't a new set up worth while? Doesn't it allow those spaces that have been visited a lot to recover? Doesn't it give new and existing players new and exciting possibilities?

 

Even in professional sport, they eventually retire making way for the new up and comers.

 

 

I enjoy caches in parks far more than caches in front of someone's house, or a strip mall...of course. However on the other hand some parks can be plenty boring as well.

 

Let's say someone places a cache somewhere that's a 3 hour hike from the car. On top of that they spend another hour finding the perfect spot with a great view, and even more time camoing a container to fit the area. They go out there several times over the course of a few weeks to get good averaged coordinates. They take my time to write up a nice description of the history of the area, and submit it to the approvers. Over time it becomes a favorite cache for some folks.

 

2 years later the original owner is required to archive the cache. Joe Geocacher then comes along a couple of days later, places a cache in the exact same spot using an altoids tin and copies and pastes all the info from the original cache page. How is that doing the spot justice, and how is "fair" to the original cache owner? It just becomes a cheap knockoff of the original because someone wanted to increase their hide numbers, and wanted to own a "cool cache." Some people are going to re-visit the area just to get it off their list, and get another smiley. Nothing "new and exciting" about that.

 

The only purpose that serves is to artifically inflate one's numbers. If I visit a cache that's in an interesting area, I will go back regardless if there is a new cache there. I don't need a smiley to enjoy a nice hike or a good place to picnic, or whatever.

 

Similarly why make someone archive a LPC just to have someone else sitck another cache there that's exactly the same? There's nothing "new and exciting" about that either.

 

Yes, pro athletes retire, but the NHL, for example, doesn't force the Detroit Red Wings to completely disband just so the Detroit Blue Fins can start up as a new team in the same arena.

 

Objectively the idea would be to ask for voluntary retirement, not manditory, especially in areas that already have a high level of saturation. That new caches would not be placed exactly in the same spot.

 

With a way to recognize popular caches once they are retired...

[docbosh]

 

Does geocaching dot com actively ask geocachers who have placed caches that are 2, 3, 4 or more years old to relinquish the space for potentially new caches? I bet a majority of you think the idea is absurd, but is it really? After a while isn't a new set up worth while? Doesn't it allow those spaces that have been visited a lot to recover? Doesn't it give new and existing players new and exciting possibilities?

 

 

While most of your post sounded more like the typical "it's not fair" whine because someone else got to the "good spots" before you, I do definitely agree with the above statement about allowing the environment to rest once it has been visited frequently over an extended period of time. I hadn't thought of that before and I think it's a very valid point. Especially since some of our fellow GCers have proven that they are not inclined to "tread lightly" and some have caused considerable damage in some areas, as is currently being discussed in another thread.

 

But, the rest of your post seemed to state that you're disappointed that someone placed a cache where you wanted to. Isn't the point to make caches available in fun areas to visit, no matter who placed them? If someone else has already provided that service to their fellow GCers (including YOU), great! This is where competition arises in this activity that really isn't healthy. It's not a me vs. you thing - it's supposed to be a we/us all working together thing.

 

If you really search your local area, which currently contains less than 2000 caches according to your information, I hardly think you can't find any interesting or cool locations left to place a cache. You may just have to explore areas you've never been in and branch out a bit. During our short time of geocaching, we've already discovered 3 beautifully hidden areas that we never knew existed and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for someone placing a cache there. Everyone already knows about state parks and public areas - find somewhere truly unique!

 

-K

 

I am familiar with the "it's not fair" stuff you are referring to, and that might have been true before. I separated that from this on purpose, so that the core of the discussion could occur with out the need for everyone to tell me just how too bad it is for me. It isn't in reference to a single cache that I am having a problem placing (though I am working through one a present).

 

I think that there is some serious discussion that needs to occur with regards to saturation guidelines, as some people seem to think it should be more, and other seem to think it should be less, I think the zone idea might address both camps.

[docbosh]

I see no reason to automatically archive a cache from owner A simply to let Owner B move in and place a cache. Sounds like a pointless exercise just to get a new smiley added to your count.

 

I have several 7+ year old caches that are getting more visits these days than in any year past. Certainly makes it sound like a very viable cache location with no reason to close up shop.

 

If you cannot find a "fun" and interesting location in which to hide a new cache - feel free to not hide one. I would not want to search for one that the owner really did not care to set out.

 

As for the "level" playing fied. You cannot go back - it will never be new and level. When I started there were 5 caches within 100 miles of my home. Only 1 within 60 miles. No place (in Norrth America anyway) will ever see that kind of total openess for cache placements again.

 

Again, I am suggesting a voluntary retirement, with a special recognition going to the retired caches.

 

I understand certain points you are making, but I like the idea of being inclusionary when possible...

[docbosh]

No one bothered to check this guy's numbers?

 

Minimum cache separation (radius) = .1 mi. = 528 ft.

Area of a circle = radius x pi.

528 ft. x 3.14159 = 1659 sq.ft. occupied per cache

 

That's such a far cry from "one single cache takes up over 89,000 square feet of space" that I'm inclined to dismiss the rest of his reasoning as grossly misguided. (Yes, I know that circles don't tessellate, so each cache would realistically require a bit more space than the figure I produced, but not fifty times as much space.) There are still an awful lot of nice places out in the world -- which is rather large, after all -- that aren't quite saturated yet.

 

Oh, and it may be viewed as impolite to say this, but maybe he should find a bit more than twenty caches before he goes off making judgements about the state of the caching world.

 

Ya my AutoCAD software (I am an drafting tech that is AutoDesk Certified) did the checking for me, it has a fancy dancy little tool called [A]rea. I drew a circle with a 528' radius then used the tool it told me that the area is 875825.76634 sf, and as it turns out you were correct there was an error, I dropped off a digit when I did the mental calculation, a single cache requires precisely 20.106192994936 acres.

 

but don't take my word for it the calc is a = pi X r squares

http://www.calculateme.com/cArea/AreaOfCircle.htm

 

So before you bad mouth me get your math right. The 1659 sf you talked about would fit inside a ± 40.75' x 40.75' square. According to your math you could stuff ±528 caches in the space of the current saturation guidelines.

 

In my error you will have to adjust by dividing my theory numbers by 10. So instead of 62,000, it's 6,200 and instead of 30,000 caches, it's only 3,000 would fit. With around 1,800 in place you can begin to see why I'm calling it a problem.

 

So thank you so much for pointing out my error, you made me review my numbers and it was true there was an error, my saturation rate was wrong by a factor of 10.

 

And now if you don't mind, I'm going to simply ignore you for being grossly misguided.

Edited August 13, 2009 by docbosh

[docbosh]

If I understood correctly, the OP meant that those particular coordinates would be "retired" as well, and a new cache would not be allowed to be placed there for a couple of years at least, in order to allow the environment to rest and recover from all the traffic. But by removing that cache, it opens up a new plot of possible land maybe an acre or so away.

 

That is not the way I understood it. I believe the OP's assumption was that the area would be allowed "to rest" simply because that cache was gone, assuming that the new cache would be hidden in a significantly different spot (which, in my experience, is not neccessarily the case. Good areas for caches tend to attract cache hides to those areas)

 

That's been my experience. After archiving a 5 year old cache at a local architecturally significant structure in a scenic location, a new cache was posted about a week later. It is a better hide then I had placed and at the opposite side of the structure. I enjoyed the new find. Part of what I like about geocaching it the hide n seek aspect, it's fun, it's not about the numbers for me. Plus it was interesting to see that someone could find another good (actually better) hiding spot. It brought people back for another visit after 5 years - sometimes people need the excuse of a cache to re-visit a spot. And the hide gave them a different perspective of the structure. I'm all for limited cache placements, it doesn't feel fair not to share the fun of hiding with new geocachers. I'm thinking 3-5 years is a good time limit.

 

Simply, thank you.

[+The Jester]

No, honest this is open discussion.

 

I have some issues that I wonder about.

 

In a perfect world (avoiding packing issues) since each cache circle can overlap other circles - each cache only reserves exclusively for itself a circlular area 1/2 of the 528 radius guideline. Thus 264^2 times pi = 218954.8 square feet.

Your calcs are a bit incorrect. 528 feet IS the radius.

 

One geocache takes approximately 875,828 square feet.

Except that the circles overlap cutting down the amount that is exclusive. See the diagram a few posts before yours.

[docbosh]

Saturation zones, taking as much into consideration as possible, including density and elevation (topography) that dials the .1 of a mile rule up or down accordingly.

 

A predetermined shelf life for caches, or a limit on cache exculsivity after a certain amount of time. Including the idea of voluntary retrevial.

 

Review of mystery and multicaches to place certain limits on them.

I'm a newcomer. I've had cache placements in what I thought were interesting places denied because of nearby caches. But I'm against your proposals.

 

A cache with a problem should be archived. One that is in good condition, why in Hades should it be archived just so someone else can hide a possibly less interesting cache? Personally I enjoy finding the older caches.

 

Reviewers do make allowance for caches closer than 0.1 miles. Usually it is because of terrain - your two caches may require a hike longer than 0.1 miles between them due to natural obstacles. It is up to you to present your case to them and convince them.

 

What limits are you proposing for mysteries and multistages?

 

Flip side and just as feasible, some new of the hides may be more interesting cache than the mundane parking lot micro cache that is hogging up 20 acres.

 

Reviewers MAY make allowances, but it seems that in their moral haugthiness to guard the morals of caching they don't. In one instance recently I made a case based on a sever change in elevation depite being only 110m apart from two others. So you'll have to tell me how I good about convincing them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I even suggest that if it were for a friend in the same situation they would have.

 

I'm not proposing anything, merely open minds.

Edited August 13, 2009 by docbosh

[+Puppy Dawg]

I own over 100 caches. If someone wanted to put one within a tenth of a mile of one, I'd archive it and let them.

[+Chrysalides]

In a perfect world (avoiding packing issues) since each cache circle can overlap other circles - each cache only reserves exclusively for itself a circlular area 1/2 of the 528 radius guideline. Thus 264^2 times pi = 218954.8 square feet.

Your calcs are a bit incorrect. 528 feet IS the radius.

 

One geocache takes approximately 875,828 square feet.

528 feet is the radius, but what you are assuming with 876k sq ft is that the radius of two geocaches cannot touch. That would mean they are 0.2 miles apart.

 

Picture it. If you put two geocaches 0.1 mile apart, and you draw a circle of radius 0.1 mile around each of them, the circles overlap.

[docbosh]

Did someone place a cache where you wanted to?????

No, Well, yes someone did and I asked about it in this thread. But I'm starting another thread for some honest this is open discussion in general on the topic of saturation (again).

 

I have some issues that I wonder about.

 

There-fixed it for ya.

You want honest straight talk in here, you should be prepared to give some too.

 

If you want honesty, all the caches that I had problems with have been either removed or relocated, so I don't see the continued relevance. I wasn't swinging it around to those caches again for a reason. It seems to cloud the minds of others. They think that I'm hiding something. Some people even go so far as to edit what I say so that it fits their perspective.

[+gof1]

If you don't want to play by the rues of GC dot com go list caches elsewhere. Or start you own geocaching website.

[docbosh]

I own over 100 caches. If someone wanted to put one within a tenth of a mile of one, I'd archive it and let them.

 

That's very cool of you to do. Not everyone I guess feels the same.

[+bittsen]

Yes, the zones can overlap but the zones are exclusive of placing a second cache. So, while ONE geocache takes up @876K feet, that doesn't mean that 2 caches would necessarily take double that space.

 

If the question were "how much space does 7 geocaches take, the answer is approximately 1,970,000 square feet which would imply that one geocache would only take around 281,428 square feet (assuming the caches were placed in perfect alignment).

[docbosh]

If you don't want to play by the rues of GC dot com go list caches elsewhere. Or start you own geocaching website.

 

Listen buddy the world isn't square any more.

 

Imagine the number of people who died as a heretic, for simply being right.

[+gof1]

If you don't want to play by the rues of GC dot com go list caches elsewhere. Or start you own geocaching website.

 

Listen buddy the world isn't square any more.

 

Imagine the number of people who died as a heretic, for simply being right.

 

I am not your buddy and I have no sympathy for your problem. If my cache is in someone way they can ask me and I will consider moving it. Add to that that I sometimes archive a cache to give others a shot at the space. I do my part. I see no reason to change things to force others out so YOU don't feel put upon. Go out and find your own space, everyone else manages.

[+chrisrayn]

Quite honestly, I believe this sport is more about finding geocaches than making them. If there are already caches in place, it seems pointless to go place another one. Your cool historical marker may be cooler than the other dude's random tree 100 feet away, but that's just what happened.

 

A location is a location...don't fret. Drives has already taken every cemetary in Texas except one, but I don't complain.

 

Much.

[+Chrysalides]

Flip side and just as feasible, some new of the hides may be more interesting cache than the mundane parking lot micro cache that is hogging up 20 acres.

 

Reviewers MAY make allowances, but it seems that in their moral haugthiness to guard the morals of caching they don't. In one instance recently I made a case based on a sever change in elevation depite being only 110m apart from two others. So you'll have to tell me how I good about convincing them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I even suggest that if it were for a friend in the same situation they would have.

You're correct, of course, that a new cache may be more interesting or a better hide than an old one. But deciding on which of two hides is "better" is a judgment call and things can get really ugly.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your experience with your local reviewer. I would, however, advise against the kind of language as it is not likely you would gain much sympathy here by presenting your case this way. Not knowing the full situation, all I can say is that if you're not able to make any headway with your reviewer, you can appeal to geocaching.com (can't remember the e-mail, but there is a contact). Presenting your case clearly and without emotion, and being polite and cooperative when talking to your reviewer, helps put your case in a good light.

[+Chrysalides]

Yes, the zones can overlap but the zones are exclusive of placing a second cache. So, while ONE geocache takes up @876K feet, that doesn't mean that 2 caches would necessarily take double that space.

 

If the question were "how much space does 7 geocaches take, the answer is approximately 1,970,000 square feet which would imply that one geocache would only take around 281,428 square feet (assuming the caches were placed in perfect alignment).

Sorry, I misread your reply earlier.

 

There was a somewhat entertaining thread a few months back. Someone asked how many geocaches can be placed in an area of 10 square miles.

 

Assuming a strip of land 1 foot wide by 52,800 miles long : more than 1/2 million

[docbosh]

If you don't want to play by the rues of GC dot com go list caches elsewhere. Or start you own geocaching website.

 

Listen buddy the world isn't square any more.

 

Imagine the number of people who died as a heretic, for simply being right.

 

I am not your buddy and I have no sympathy for your problem. If my cache is in someone way they can ask me and I will consider moving it. Add to that that I sometimes archive a cache to give others a shot at the space. I do my part. I see no reason to change things to force others out so YOU don't feel put upon. Go out and find your own space, everyone else manages.

 

You know nothing like geocaching suddenly just comes into being without thought, and some evolution. If you don't want to participate in a discussion that makes you uncomfortable because it challenges all of your preconceived notions of the game, then don't. If your not going to add some thought to a discussion then please don't bother. To simply ask me to shut up and play by the rules is not adding to the discussion, so I don't know why you bother.

 

If you are against the idea of changes certain guidelines, then show me you have actually applied critical thought.

 

If you are happy to relinquish to others then I can appreciate that. The fact that not everyone plays well with others is a bit of a problem, and not just in geocaching (refer to any armed conflict for more information on this phenomenon).

 

The .1 of a mile saturation guideline (recognized as a totally arbirtary number) has some issues. Not just for me. A square or hex grid has its merits (not that I'm suggesting either) because there are no holes in possible cache placement that are present in the geometry of a circle.

[knowschad]

I own over 100 caches. If someone wanted to put one within a tenth of a mile of one, I'd archive it and let them.

 

That's very cool of you to do. Not everyone I guess feels the same.

 

They're lame hides. He doesn't care (just kidding, of course!) But seriously, some hides really don't have a whole lot of investment (I know absolutely NOTHING about GeoBigDawg's hides) and others have a whole lot of investement, and everywhere inbetween. I've got some that I wouldn't archive if you begged me, and maybe a few that I'd archive if you hinted at it.

 

By the way... isn't this cacheanasia we are discussing here?

[docbosh]

Quite honestly, I believe this sport is more about finding geocaches than making them. If there are already caches in place, it seems pointless to go place another one. Your cool historical marker may be cooler than the other dude's random tree 100 feet away, but that's just what happened.

 

A location is a location...don't fret. Drives has already taken every cemetary in Texas except one, but I don't complain.

 

Much.

 

I try to tell myself that geocaching is not about the location of a cache. Which is true. And false.

 

The most popular caches are rarely in some WalMart parking lot.

 

A cache on Mont Royal in Montreal is likely to get a visit every day or so, in the summer.

 

I placed a cache in a new play park with a splash pad for kids, only built in 2008, and not everyone knows it's there, but they don't seem to care. My cache there was visited the day after I placed it 2 weeks ago, they took my $2 for the FTF, and no one has been back since. Who knows when some one else will visit?

 

Cache are like real estate, I do believe, location, location, location does make a difference.

[PastorJon]

 

There was a somewhat entertaining thread a few months back. Someone asked how many geocaches can be placed in an area of 10 square miles.

 

Assuming a strip of land 1 foot wide by 52,800 miles long : more than 1/2 million

 

Quite the powertrail, no?

[+gof1]

Personally I would have no problem if the arbitrary number was .25 miles. It doesn't change the fact that you had problems hiding your cache and got upset because the world would not change to accommodate you. Learn to work with what you have.

[docbosh]

Flip side and just as feasible, some new of the hides may be more interesting cache than the mundane parking lot micro cache that is hogging up 20 acres.

 

Reviewers MAY make allowances, but it seems that in their moral haugthiness to guard the morals of caching they don't. In one instance recently I made a case based on a sever change in elevation depite being only 110m apart from two others. So you'll have to tell me how I good about convincing them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I even suggest that if it were for a friend in the same situation they would have.

You're correct, of course, that a new cache may be more interesting or a better hide than an old one. But deciding on which of two hides is "better" is a judgment call and things can get really ugly.

 

I'm sorry to hear about your experience with your local reviewer. I would, however, advise against the kind of language as it is not likely you would gain much sympathy here by presenting your case this way. Not knowing the full situation, all I can say is that if you're not able to make any headway with your reviewer, you can appeal to geocaching.com (can't remember the e-mail, but there is a contact). Presenting your case clearly and without emotion, and being polite and cooperative when talking to your reviewer, helps put your case in a good light.

 

Ya I did the polite thing. I presented a good arguement, and they said NO. Just like that. I can't even see why, they provided a link to the reviewers wateringhole, but I can't gain access.

 

But this thread has nothing to do with that.

 

You know what else I got? It was suggested that before placing a cache I run the coords past the reviewer, since they can see info I don't have with regards to mystery and multicaches. When I asked as directed, the reviewer told me to use the Hide and Seek page and to put the coords in there. Wow, that was helpful. Did he think I hadn't done that when I specifically asked about mystery or multis nearby? Well it goes to show that the solutions being presented by the masses don't always work either.

 

I knew I had one more potential appeal, but decided to move it instead. I am still trying to find a new location after my next location came up even closer to another final stage. I ran the next set off coords past the reviewer, and now I wait. Again.

 

But this thread has nothing to do with that.

Edited August 14, 2009 by docbosh

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Currently there are reported to me by those who can count, about 1,800 caches in Montreal, one for every 1667 people. Cool, still lots of room to expand in... yes, but if and only if you place them in thoroughly mundane areas as well as the interesting places like parks. By parks in this case I mean large regional parks instead of playgrounds (which appear on the fringe of acceptable for cache placement).

 

Since you are referring to something that I posted I should probably comment on what you claim I reported. What I wrote was that there were a bit over 1800 caches withing a 10 mile radius of "Montreal". On the Hide and Seek a Cache page I entered Montreal and set the limit to 10 miles. I just did it again and it's up to 1893 caches. If I bump up the radius to 10 miles, the result is 3391 caches. By contrast, if I put my home town (with a population of 30,00 or so), a 15 mile radius yields 288 caches.

 

What that tells me is that you live in a cache rich area, and as I suggested in my earlier post, if you're having a really difficult time finding a place in your city to place a cache, maybe there are already enough caches in the area. With that kind of density, how many new and interesting areas are there that you can show to geocachers by placing a cache there? I suspect that most geocachers in the area with a large number of finds have visited most of areas worth holding a cache.

 

You've also suggested that some caches could/should be retired and replaced with new ones. I don't know how universal this preference is, but I, personally, prefer finding older caches than new ones. A cache that has been around for 4, 5 or more years has stood the test of time. It's hidden well enough that the location hasn't been compromised by muggles in all that time. They're often adopted by others because they're longevity and history are worth maintaining.

 

The oldest one I have found has been out in the wild for over 8 1/2 years. I drove 30-40 miles out of my way and probably passed hundreds if not thousands of caches to grab just that one cache.

[docbosh]

Personally I would have no problem if the arbitrary number was .25 miles. It doesn't change the fact that you had problems hiding your cache and got upset because the world would not change to accommodate you. Learn to work with what you have.

 

You show me where I am presenting upset and then I'll pay more attention to you.

 

Thank you for your input, how ever limited or uninciteful it was.

 

You can try to link one thing to another all you like, it isn't going to make the facts fit your conception of the thread.

[+Walts Hunting]

Givenn all the changes he suggests I would add one more. No whining by people who don't support the hobby.

 

A lot of childish whining by someone who is using something other people are paying for.

[Keystone]

Given the poo that has been flung by the OP at the "haughty" volunteer cache reviewers, anyone who disagrees with him, etc., the proper remedy here is to close the OP's thread. The OP is instructed not to open another thread about cache saturation. This is a forum for open discussion, not a place for flinging poo. Thank you.