Locating a cache for a new hide

[+wor!dw!de]

I would like to place a cache, but instead of placing and publishing it, only to find out it is within the 528 ft rule....Is there a quick and easy way to verify this before placing and publishing?

 

I have looked at my active area caches and my finds then I try to locate an area outside the distance rule...Is there another way??

 

thanks

[+niraD]

If you have a location in mind, then you can ask your local reviewer to verify that the coordinates are acceptable before you invest time and money in the cache. They have access to the coordinates of puzzle and multi finals too, and they can check your proposed coordinates easily.

[+dakin55]

I have a cache ready to place and thought I ha a couple nice spots that followed the 528 rule, but when I got there I really didn't like the spots that I thought would be good! I have a sort by location for my PQ now when I get to an area that I look at and say "this would be aweesome" I just do a sort and see how far away other caches are. I still havent found the perfect spot as i don't want to just place a cache, I want to place a good cache for my first one! I have yet to try it yet but the google earth viewer might be another way to do a measure if you have a location in mind.

[+rubai]

The Geocaching Australia website has a feature (which I just discovered about 15 mins ago) that will draw the 160m circle around each cache when viewed in Google Maps. But it only seems to work for Australia and New Zealand.

[+bobandrobin]

I'm new also but have had experience with this. While in the field checking locations to place a cache I pulled up the nearest cache on my GPS (lowrance expedition c) and the distance between my location and the cache was displayed.

[+wor!dw!de]

Yes, thank you all, I will try a quick contact of my reviewer too.

[+rtyrie]

The Geocaching Australia website has a feature (which I just discovered about 15 mins ago) that will draw the 160m circle around each cache when viewed in Google Maps. But it only seems to work for Australia and New Zealand.

 

Using Google Earth, you can do something similar. Mark your proposed cache location and then use the "Ruler" feature to see if any caches are within the radius. Of course this may not work if there are multi/puzzles in the area for which you are unaware of their location.

[+abanazar]

Sorry for slightly hijacking this thread, but I hope my query is so close that it's still on-topic.

 

On what separation basis are multicaches based? Examples:

 

1a) published coordinates lead to a micro (X) containing coordinates for final (Y) -- do both (X) and (Y) have to be >0.1 mile from any other cache (or part multicache?), or just the published X (or just the non-published Y)?

 

1b) Would X and Y have to be >0.1 mile from each other too?!

 

2) For 'not-physically-cached' multicache stages (eg an intermediate waypoint to obtain digits from an existing road sign, rather than say a hidden container), do they have any separation rules from other caches (or part multicache)?

 

3) Is proximity to an existing Earthcache treated just the same as any other type of cache (eg a physically hidden one)?

 

All these factors might have to influence my decision-making as I build up to trying to place my first cache locally!

 

If all this is already covered somewhere that I haven't discovered, please direct me and apologies for the repetition!

 

Thanks.

[+niraD]

On what separation basis are multicaches based? Examples:

 

1a) published coordinates lead to a micro (X) containing coordinates for final (Y) -- do both (X) and (Y) have to be >0.1 mile from any other cache (or part multicache?), or just the published X (or just the non-published Y)?

Based on the guidelines, both X and Y must be >0.1 mile from any other cache container or physical stage: "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m)."

 

1b) Would X and Y have to be >0.1 mile from each other too?!

No. Per the guidelines, "Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

 

2) For 'not-physically-cached' multicache stages (eg an intermediate waypoint to obtain digits from an existing road sign, rather than say a hidden container), do they have any separation rules from other caches (or part multicache)?

The virtual stages are ignored for checking saturation. Per the guidelines, "Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline."

 

3) Is proximity to an existing Earthcache treated just the same as any other type of cache (eg a physically hidden one)?

There are no "cache containers and physical stages" for EarthCaches.

[+Shen84]

But why doesn't exist a feature that allows you to enter the coordinates and checks automatically the distance of all stages of other caches nearby? So you could get a positive or a negative result for each stage.

 

This also would relieve the reviewer.

[+niraD]

But why doesn't exist a feature that allows you to enter the coordinates and checks automatically the distance of all stages of other caches nearby? So you could get a positive or a negative result for each stage.

Because such a feature would be used to brute-force the final locations of puzzles and multi-caches.

[+Shen84]

Because such a feature would be used to brute-force the final locations of puzzles and multi-caches.

 

161m (or 0.1 miles) is a large area. If only the answer would be: "The coordinates are too close to another cache/stage" you can't know which multi or puzzle is nearby.

 

It's a strange thing to create some rules but not to offer tools to respect these rules. And I think most of the users are interested in resolving the multis/puzzles by there own without 'cheating'. Not to develop a tool which would help a lot of GCs because of a minority who could misuse this feature is not the best way I think.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Shen84

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Unfortunately, you would be surprised how many people would use this as a "work around" for puzzles and multis without solving them on their own.

[+Shen84]

Maybe you are right, but I think adding this feature would reduce the count of people who enter wrong coordinates or 'forget' some coordinates to avoid this rule...