New series and the 528 rule

[+warpling]

Hello again,

I am making a geocache series in a narrow canyon that has no caches in it. Some of the locations I plan to use are around .07 to .09 miles apart, will my caches get instantly rejected if they're less than .1mi apart or is that just as a congestion issue for people placing new caches in saturated areas?

Thanks!

[+Jeep4two]

My understanding has always been that 528 is a rule of thumb designed to prevent over saturation (in general). I suspect there may be problems anytime the caches are less than 528' apart.

 

Contact your reviewer to explain your situation and see what he/she thinks. It could be that your situation may warrant an exception, not sure.

[+TripCyclone]

Here's a question. While the distance between two of them is .07 miles, is the path to get between those two .07 miles or is it more due to a winding canyon path? If more, then I'd say your best bet is to contact your reviewer and ask if that would be okay. If the distance traveled is over .1 miles, your reviewer might be open to it. And checking with them first would be good because they will be aware of it and maybe even have a suggestion for you to.

[+wimseyguy]

Most likely they will get denied if they are less than .1 mile from each other. You can either make it into a multi cache, or spread things out.

[+warpling]

I just found a post where someone replied that each part of a multi could be 1' away from one another, would I have to make the series a multi though? I'd rather make them all traditional caches with an explanation. :/

[+Rockin Roddy]

I just found a post where someone replied that each part of a multi could be 1' away from one another, would I have to make the series a multi though? I'd rather make them all traditional caches with an explanation. :/

 

As has been stated, your best bet is to ask your reviewer. Asking here is merely asking opinions, your reviewer is the one who will give the final say...

[+tozainamboku]

This guideline is some times hard to explain. The ultimate goal of the saturation guideline is to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches. This applies both to when there are already existing caches as well as to when an individual cachers wants to saturate a new area with caches. In the later case the review may even require more separation than .1 mile or may limit the number of caches you can place. Leave room for other cachers to hid something on this trail. If for some reason you need to have the finders visit all the spots - perhaps to keep them on the right path - this would be a good candidate for making it a multicache. There is no minimum distance for the legs of a multicache. Of course 1' separation would be silly.

 

Ask yourself if you really need to put a cache at each of the spots you are planing. Leave some out and have caches at least .2 miles apart so others might find a place to put another cache or make some of the locations multicaches. I doubt very much you can come up with an explanation for your reviewer as to why you need to place two traditional caches .07 or .08 miles apart.

[+warpling]

Thanks, the distance is as the crow flies. This could be a problem as some of them have already been placed on a bridge and on posts and such because I felt like the distance was definitely 528'. Checking when I got home I realized they were pretty close :/

[AZcachemeister]

This guideline is some times hard to explain. The ultimate goal of the saturation guideline is to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches. This applies both to when there are already existing caches as well as to when an individual cachers wants to saturate a new area with caches. In the later case the review may even require more separation than .1 mile or may limit the number of caches you can place. Leave room for other cachers to hid something on this trail. If for some reason you need to have the finders visit all the spots - perhaps to keep them on the right path - this would be a good candidate for making it a multicache. There is no minimum distance for the legs of a multicache. Of course 1' separation would be silly.

 

Ask yourself if you really need to put a cache at each of the spots you are planing. Leave some out and have caches at least .2 miles apart so others might find a place to put another cache or make some of the locations multicaches. I doubt very much you can come up with an explanation for your reviewer as to why you need to place two traditional caches .07 or .08 miles apart.

 

tozainamboku pretty much sums it up.

I was thinking you should probably make a couple of multi's out of some of the spots you picked.

I'm not sure if it would fly, but an 'interlocked' series of multi's would be fun for me...maybe that could work?

Also be sure to make mention of actual trail distance as TripCyclone pointed out.

[+Spoondoggled & Co.]

We are preparing caches and I was reading about this very thing today because we want to make sure we get it right the first time.

 

See this link: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Under the heading Cache Saturation.

 

'Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.'

 

You can point this out to your reviewer if questions arise.

 

Good luck!

[+Lil Devil]

You can point this out to your reviewer if questions arise.

I highly doubt you need to "point out" what the guidelines say to your reviewer. Most of them can probably recite the entire document in their sleep. Backwards.

[+TripCyclone]

We are preparing caches and I was reading about this very thing today because we want to make sure we get it right the first time.

 

See this link: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Under the heading Cache Saturation.

 

'Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.'

 

You can point this out to your reviewer if questions arise.

 

Good luck!

 

The original intention was to place multiple, SEPARATE caches, not a multi. Therefore cache saturation guidelines would entirely apply. That is one reason why the OP later questioned the idea of changing this to a multi.

 

Their reviewer is probably well aware of this policy, and if the cache is submitted as a multi, I highly doubt that the reviewer would question the placements with regards to distance (presuming that the placements don't go against other guidelines). As Lil_Devil pointed out, there is no reason to point this out to the reviewer.

 

About the only thing that would be worth mentioning would relate to distance traveled. If the caches are only .07 miles apart but the landscape requires a hike of .2 miles, then it might be relevant to ask the reviewer if that would be acceptable due to the plan of having the caches be part of a series. Asking the reviewer for advice in that instance would be beneficial. For some, the extra information of how you have to hike .2 miles and how they are related caches might be enough for the reviewer to say "Sure, sounds like a good idea." Can't hurt to ask.

[+warpling]

Great guys, thank you very much.

Edited September 7, 2009 by warpling

[+Cache O'Plenty]

A side note.... When you place each cache, mark the coordinates (i.e. waypont 001, 002, etc.). Then, as you proceed to your next cache, set the first one as your "goto" waypoint. Your GPS will then be able to tell you how far you are from the first cache. Make sure it says 0.1 miles and then go a bit further to make sure you are 528' from the first one.

[+DeepButi]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else. So think it twice before saturating a nice place just because you know it.

Edited September 7, 2009 by DeepButi

[+the hermit crabs]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

Edited September 7, 2009 by the hermit crabs

[+DeepButi]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

You are assuming all geocachers started geocaching on 2001 ...

 

Anyway, I was not trying to discuss about this particular serie, just to point out another point of view: fullfilling a place is not necessarily a good idea. But of course it's your serie/decission.

[+bittsen]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

 

So it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas?

 

Personally I would be behind a guideline that said cachers couldn't have their own caches within 1/2 of a mile from eachother. It would help to avoid cache saturation by individual geocachers.

[+the hermit crabs]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

 

So it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas?

 

Personally I would be behind a guideline that said cachers couldn't have their own caches within 1/2 of a mile from each other. It would help to avoid cache saturation by individual geocachers.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I think that "it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas"... what I'm saying is the opposite: I don't like the idea of stopping any cacher, new or old, from placing caches in their favorite areas. We have enough rules as it is; I find the idea that Groundspeak might say "Yes, this spot is okay for a cache -- just not one placed by you" to be pretty icky.

[+bittsen]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

 

So it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas?

 

Personally I would be behind a guideline that said cachers couldn't have their own caches within 1/2 of a mile from each other. It would help to avoid cache saturation by individual geocachers.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I think that "it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas"... what I'm saying is the opposite: I don't like the idea of stopping any cacher, new or old, from placing caches in their favorite areas. We have enough rules as it is; I find the idea that Groundspeak might say "Yes, this spot is okay for a cache -- just not one placed by you" to be pretty icky.

 

I got the idea by reading that a cacher wanted to load a trail every 528 feet or so with their caches. A trail that currently has no caches on it. That would make the trail exclusive from others being able to place a cache on the same trail. (I suppose one could accomplish the same task by placing caches 1000 feet apart)

 

It was a simple thought that shouldn't have needed to be explained.

[AZcachemeister]

WHOA BOYS!

 

I don't think the OP's intent was to hog the whole trail, but to provide sufficient motivation and reward for cachers to go there.

By the same token, I have seen several cases where a cache gets hidden at the top of the mountain trail, and six months later a 'power trail' has developed, necessitating a re-visit.

[+warpling]

AZcachemeister has got it. I don't want to take over the trail and there are still places to put caches, just I've chosen some very specific spots, an electrical box, and boulder, a bridge as landmarks and places for caches that just so happen to be all about .1mi apart. There has never been a cache here and it's a nice route I like to ride on my bike occasionally that is nestled in residential area. I don't want to geo-bomb the area, I just want to create a fun series that strings people along the extent of the trail.

[+power69]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

Personally I would be behind a guideline that said cachers couldn't have their own caches within 1/2 of a mile from eachother. It would help to avoid cache saturation by individual geocachers.

That would also prevent power trails too. that'd be frustrating to those that throw a film cannister out the window every .1mi

[Clan Riffster]

So it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas?

Absolutely! Break out the pitchforks & torches!

(or, as many here have done, offer helpful suggestions)

 

That would prevent power trails. that'd be frustrating to those that throw a film cannister out the window every .1mi

Careful! There are folks here that will staunchly defend the right to spew film cans every 528'.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

So it's OK to stop newer cachers from placing caches in their favorite areas?

 

If you want to look at existing caches as "stopping new caches" yeah. That's a pretty interesting viewpoint.

[+Kabuthunk]

A side note.... When you place each cache, mark the coordinates (i.e. waypont 001, 002, etc.). Then, as you proceed to your next cache, set the first one as your "goto" waypoint. Your GPS will then be able to tell you how far you are from the first cache. Make sure it says 0.1 miles and then go a bit further to make sure you are 528' from the first one.

That's actually a really good idea. Although, you could always switch to Metric (like pretty much the rest of the world ), and then it's 161 meters. No guess-work needed.

[Mr.Yuck]

Take a look at this serie GC1PMPZ of 70 caches.

 

Even if 528' rule is ok, my personal feeling is that they left no room for anyone else.

Those caches were placed in May of 2009. Unless that is a new trail, "anyone else" had eight years before that to place caches, but didn't.

You are assuming all geocachers started geocaching on 2001 ...

 

Anyway, I was not trying to discuss about this particular serie, just to point out another point of view: fullfilling a place is not necessarily a good idea. But of course it's your serie/decission.

 

That there is a blatant power trail of roadside micros placed .1 mile apart by the same cacher in May of this year. Hey, apparently it's my mission to cause angst today. See for yourself:

 

Edited September 9, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Prime Suspect]

That there is a blatant power trail of roadside micros placed .1 mile apart by the same cacher in May of this year. Hey, apparently it's my mission to cause angst today. See for yourself:

 

And your point is...?

[Mr.Yuck]

That there is a blatant power trail of roadside micros placed .1 mile apart by the same cacher in May of this year. Hey, apparently it's my mission to cause angst today. See for yourself:

and your point is...?

 

Oh, I just like pointing out the often comedic inconsistencies of the volunteer reviewer system.

Edited September 9, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Lil Devil]

What is inconsistent?

[Mr.Yuck]

What is inconsistent?

 

The fact that 70 micros generally, but not all, .1 mile apart were placed by the same hider with the same placement date. And some reviewers would have deemed that a power trail. From the guidelines, bolding mine.

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. 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 multicache."

[+Sol seaker]

It is really true we have great reviewer discrepancies.

 

The friend who got me into this game quit years ago because of just this thing.

 

A cache he placed got turned down for being too close to unguarded railway.

 

Here in WA we have a lot of "Rails to Trails." This being one.

There is a railway there, but it's not at all next to the trail.

 

Back in those days, his was the first on that trail. It got turned down. Now there are hundreds along that very same trail where he had his cache turned down. I know it happens all the time.

 

He could have used the procedure that is in place when you want to question a decision. He did not.

 

So I told him to get over it and play the game.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Sol seaker

[+Lil Devil]

What is inconsistent?

The fact that 70 micros generally, but not all, .1 mile apart were placed by the same hider with the same placement date. And some reviewers would have deemed that a power trail. From the guidelines, bolding mine.

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. 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 multicache."

I don't know where you got that quote, because I don't see any of that bolded stuff in the current guidelines

[+TrailGators]

What is inconsistent?

The fact that 70 micros generally, but not all, .1 mile apart were placed by the same hider with the same placement date. And some reviewers would have deemed that a power trail. From the guidelines, bolding mine.

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. 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 multicache."

I don't know where you got that quote, because I don't see any of that bolded stuff in the current guidelines

I recognize that quote. Those are the old guidelines, but don't ask me how old.

 

The giant snake posted above if it was hidden by one cacher, really wouldn't follow the current version of that guideline:

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

But frankly Scarlett....

Edited September 10, 2009 by TrailGators

[Mr.Yuck]

What is inconsistent?

The fact that 70 micros generally, but not all, .1 mile apart were placed by the same hider with the same placement date. And some reviewers would have deemed that a power trail. From the guidelines, bolding mine.

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. 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 multicache."

I don't know where you got that quote, because I don't see any of that bolded stuff in the current guidelines

 

Oh-oh. Boy, am I in trouble now. But the new guidelines say "please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can." And this guy in Spain did it anyways. Despite the fact they said "please".

[+ChileHead]

Oh-oh. Boy, am I in trouble now. But the new guidelines say "please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can." And this guy in Spain did it anyways. Despite the fact they said "please".

 

You're so old school, Urkel. Get with the program!