How strict are they about the feet rule?

[+roiegat]

So there is little town in PA called Skippack. It's a quint little town with lots of shopping and activities. I belong to a community theater there and recently discovered that a good friend of ours from the theater is a huge geocacher (I'm about a month into it right now). We were both talking about how cool it would be to put a cache near the theater. But the issue is that a local resteraunt (Justin's) has a micro behind them which is about 430 feet. There another micro on the other side next to one of the shops thats around 350 feet from the theater. In the area there are about 6 caches all together on the main street.

 

My though would be to put a non-micro at the theater and have it act as a TB hotel. My reasoning would be to promote new geocachers finding something in there adventures in Skippack. While there are around 6 caches in Skippack, all are pretty much micro's and not easy to find. The closest non-micro to the theater is .48 miles away.

 

Being new to the sport, I am finding that I enjoy it more when me and my family do find a cache. We seems to spend a lot of time trying to find micro's without success and enjoy finding non-micros more (especially with the kids with us). If I knew there was at least one non-micro in the area I think it would get me to go look for it and then attempt the micro nears it.

 

Thoughts? Any reviewers care to chime in?

[knowschad]

If your intended hiding spot is less then 528 feet from another cache in a situation like that, it will not be approved. Only extreme situations like tall cliffs or raging rivers (or maybe lakes in areas that don't freeze in the winter) MIGHT be allowed an exception, but even that is highly doubtful.

[+roiegat]

So no consideration for cache size distribution in an area is given. I understand the rule is for making sure we don't over saturate an area.

[+niraD]

It sounds like the main street is already pretty saturated. And I would not expect an exception to be allowed, given the distances you cited. But your local reviewer will have the last word on that.

 

Another option would be a multi-cache (or puzzle cache) where seekers get information near the theater, and that information takes them to a cache located elsewhere.

 

And I'm familiar with cases where the owner of an existing cache moved it a short distance, so someone else could hide a new cache in a particular spot.

[+CTYankee9]

It will depend on your local reveiwer{s}, your best bet is to discuss it with those that are actually going to approve your cache in question or the placement of a future cache. And this is best done before cache placement, give your reviewer a chance to mull it over and give the area a look; to see if there are any extenuating circumstances, before the cache is placed. It is a guidline, I am sure, and cache by cache considerations by your reviewer can be taken into account.

[Mr.Yuck]

So no consideration for cache size distribution in an area is given.

 

In my Utopian, Puritan cache society it would be. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

 

But basically, to answer the OP's question, nope, never going to happen. In a case like this, you could say they are very strict about the "feet rule".

[+roiegat]

Good thoughts folks.

 

I don't think 6 caches is over saturation. There aren't too close to each other. Give that if you parked anywere in skippack you could walk to those caches and enjoy your day. I know some parks I've looked at going to that have way more then that in a smaller total area.

 

So how do you go about finding who the local reviewer in the area is?

[+CTYankee9]

Good thoughts folks.

 

I don't think 6 caches is over saturation. There aren't too close to each other. Give that if you parked anywere in skippack you could walk to those caches and enjoy your day. I know some parks I've looked at going to that have way more then that in a smaller total area.

 

So how do you go about finding who the local reviewer in the area is?

 

See who has been reviewing all the caches in your area and publishing them. Normally one screen name for any local area, maybe 2 at most.

[jholly]

It will depend on your local reveiwer{s}, your best bet is to discuss it with those that are actually going to approve your cache in question or the placement of a future cache. And this is best done before cache placement, give your reviewer a chance to mull it over and give the area a look; to see if there are any extenuating circumstances, before the cache is placed. It is a guidline, I am sure, and cache by cache considerations by your reviewer can be taken into account.

 

The reviewer will not "look" the area over. The reviewer will say no. The guideline is more for the use by the reviewer. For the hider it is a fairly iron cast rule. Think 528 and you will do alright.

 

Jim

[knowschad]

Good thoughts folks.

 

I don't think 6 caches is over saturation. There aren't too close to each other. Give that if you parked anywere in skippack you could walk to those caches and enjoy your day. I know some parks I've looked at going to that have way more then that in a smaller total area.

 

 

 

in that case, go ahead and submit your cache.

 

 

To find who your local reviewer(s) is(are), look at the initial log for a couple of recently published caches.

 

 

No, cache size has no bearing on the proximity guidelines. Really, you are almost certainly wasting your time in persuing this, but that's your right.

[+roiegat]

Thanks for all the replies. I'll send and email and see what happens. If they say no, no biggie. Never hurts to ask.

 

Thanks for the info guys!

[+genegene]

I was denied a cache location because it was 10ft to close.

Even though it would put a T1 cache in the area, If I tried to move it any farther it would possibly change the T rating.

 

Luckily when I rechecked the coords when I went to move it, the coords changed just enough because of tree cover and the new coords were just enough.

[Clan Riffster]

Ya know, if you hid your cache in the nearby, (and practically cache vacant) Evansburg State Park, you wouldn't need to fret over the 528' rule. Looking at Google Earth, there sure does seem to be a bunch of nice green space out there begging for an ammo can. No need to saturate an urban environment with yet another park & grab, even if it's not a micro. Just sayin'...

[+Cardinal Red]

JUST IN CASE and LITTLE BOUTIQUE were both published by our local reviewer OReviewer.

 

You can contact OReviewer through the profile link above. I don't think you have any chance to get this published under those circumstances, but OReviewer can give you an official answer.

[+chrisrayn]

I was denied a cache location because it was 10ft to close.

Even though it would put a T1 cache in the area, If I tried to move it any farther it would possibly change the T rating.

 

Luckily when I rechecked the coords when I went to move it, the coords changed just enough because of tree cover and the new coords were just enough.

 

Okay, did ANYone else but me see a red-eyed, time-traveling android with a chrome-plated skeleton when he said T1, or is that just me?

 

Back on topic, the 528 ft rule is kind of like the "gravity" rule: you can jump all you want, but no matter what, ole Mr. Gravity ain't gonna let ya stay up there. One way or another (and usually, it's pretty dern quick), you're comin' back down.

 

I DO, however, think the Mystery/Unknown cache with a VIRTUAL stage (reference point stage), in which information must be gathered from text AT the theater that leads to the Physical cache's Final stage, is a really good bet for you. In fact, it's probably BETTER, because I know when I go caching, I often don't even see the businesses and building around me. I'm all about finding that smiley and seeing pretty nature. BUT if I'm FORCED to READ something AT a site, I'm far more likely to positively engage with whatever landmark involves the Reference Point stage. If you do this, it's completely within the guidelines and pretty much gives you what you want.

 

My BEST piece of advice though: find at LEAST 200 caches before you do your first hide. And, if you DO hide a mystery cache, try to find around 2-5 before you ever make one yourself. By then, you'll have a much fuller knowledge of what makes a good cache hide, what locations attract the least amount of muggle attention, what locations are most rain/flood proof, and what containers need the least maintenance. Many containers (i.e. Butter tubs), after all, are a horrible idea, and that's just something you learn with more experience.

Edited September 25, 2009 by chrisrayn

[+Walts Hunting]

There aren't too close to each other.

 

That is your opinion. Groundspeak says that closer than 528 feet is to close and the Frog's voice is the only one that counts.

[+roiegat]

Ya know, if you hid your cache in the nearby, (and practically cache vacant) Evansburg State Park, you wouldn't need to fret over the 528' rule. Looking at Google Earth, there sure does seem to be a bunch of nice green space out there begging for an ammo can. No need to saturate an urban environment with yet another park & grab, even if it's not a micro. Just sayin'...

 

I've yet to get to Evensburg State Park to find the caches there. But I'll check it out. I was thinking more the lines of maintance, since I'm in Skippack for shows all the time.

 

This weekend the family and I are headed to Peace Valley Park, where there are four caches there.

 

I emailed the local reviewer, we'll see what he says. Thanks for the help.

[+roiegat]

 

My BEST piece of advice though: find at LEAST 200 caches before you do your first hide. And, if you DO hide a mystery cache, try to find around 2-5 before you ever make one yourself. By then, you'll have a much fuller knowledge of what makes a good cache hide, what locations attract the least amount of muggle attention, what locations are most rain/flood proof, and what containers need the least maintenance. Many containers (i.e. Butter tubs), after all, are a horrible idea, and that's just something you learn with more experience.[/b]

 

While I only have 18 finds so far, my friend has over 500. She would be the once who would actually hid it. I was just trying to find out if we could hide it..

[+briansnat]

 

My BEST piece of advice though: find at LEAST 200 caches before you do your first hide. And, if you DO hide a mystery cache, try to find around 2-5 before you ever make one yourself. By then, you'll have a much fuller knowledge of what makes a good cache hide, what locations attract the least amount of muggle attention, what locations are most rain/flood proof, and what containers need the least maintenance. Many containers (i.e. Butter tubs), after all, are a horrible idea, and that's just something you learn with more experience.[/b]

 

While I only have 18 finds so far, my friend has over 500. She would be the once who would actually hid it. I was just trying to find out if we could hide it..

 

I completely disagree with the above advice. If the urge to hide a cache strikes you, go ahead and hide it. Don't worry about reaching a certain number of finds before you can hide a cache. There are people who hide great caches with just a couple of finds under their belts and some people with thousands of finds who hide crappy caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

So no consideration for cache size distribution in an area is given. I understand the rule is for making sure we don't over saturate an area.

 

Talk to your local reviewer. It sounds a bit closer than the flexability they have can allow, but talking won't hurt.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My BEST piece of advice though: find at LEAST 200 caches before you do your first hide. And, if you DO hide a mystery cache, try to find around 2-5 before you ever make one yourself. By then, you'll have a much fuller knowledge of what makes a good cache hide, what locations attract the least amount of muggle attention, what locations are most rain/flood proof, and what containers need the least maintenance. Many containers (i.e. Butter tubs), after all, are a horrible idea, and that's just something you learn with more experience.[/b]

 

My best adice to the OP is to follow your muse. When it whispers a cache idea, listen. It's as simple as that. The best way to think outside the box is to not limit yourself to the box others use when placing caches. Keep in mind that what you see when you hunt is the local "box". If cache in other locations you will find that there are local styles because people place what they find and forget to listen to their muse.

 

Everthing you can learn from finding and placing are just tools to aid your muse but they are no replacment for your own orginality.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Big snips!

 

at the theater

Is the other possible downfall...

May be classed as a 'commercial' cache, theory being the cache is there to get people to the theatre.

[+Walts Hunting]

I agree with Briansnat. You should hide whenever you want. If you want feedback mention in the description that you are new and would like it. We had a newbie put out one recently and ask for feedback.

 

This was my log for the cache.

 

Nice little hide to grab for a day in BOSN's Days Challenge. Welcome to the community of addicts. This hobby can be addicting for sure. As you find more caches I am sure your increased knowledge of containers that will survive a winter will grow. Looking forward to finding more of yours.

[+chrisrayn]

 

My BEST piece of advice though: find at LEAST 200 caches before you do your first hide. And, if you DO hide a mystery cache, try to find around 2-5 before you ever make one yourself. By then, you'll have a much fuller knowledge of what makes a good cache hide, what locations attract the least amount of muggle attention, what locations are most rain/flood proof, and what containers need the least maintenance. Many containers (i.e. Butter tubs), after all, are a horrible idea, and that's just something you learn with more experience.[/b]

 

While I only have 18 finds so far, my friend has over 500. She would be the once who would actually hid it. I was just trying to find out if we could hide it..

 

I completely disagree with the above advice. If the urge to hide a cache strikes you, go ahead and hide it. Don't worry about reaching a certain number of finds before you can hide a cache. There are people who hide great caches with just a couple of finds under their belts and some people with thousands of finds who hide crappy caches.

 

I have and will continue to disagree with the advice you give as well, in a sense. If you have a great hide idea, there's no harm in holding onto it until you're mature enough to figure out the best way to make it work.

 

I see no reason for someone to make a hide after 10 hides just because they have a great idea. Will that great idea be any less great after they find a few more caches? Everyone here seems to think if someone has a fantastic cache idea they shouldn't wait to hide it, as if finding 50 LPCs will turn their idea into an LPC.

 

I can't tell you how many great ideas have been muggled, washed down a river, melted, filled with water, etc, and that's just after I've found around 250 caches.

 

The only reason I can find for not waiting are: you want to get a location before someone else takes it, or you want to make a particular hide before someone else does the same thing. Quite honestly, though, that's just selfish, and doesn't consider the community of geocachers or the longevity of geocaches.

 

A great idea after 200 hides is still a great idea, just a better executed one. I just don't understand this "hide it now before you gain more knowledge because having more knowledge will destroy all ideas!"

 

It INFORMS creativity...it doesn't take away from it.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I just don't understand this "hide it now before you gain more knowledge because having more knowledge will destroy all ideas!"

 

Huh?!

 

I think what briansnat was saying is that find count does to equate to good hides.

 

I hid my first hide after 10 or so finds. It is still in place after 5+ years with almost no maintenance required (one cracked container and a log book replacement). I continue to get logs longer than "TFTC", with most pepole enjoying the walk and the scenery.

 

I have found caches hidden by people with hundreds of finds in crappy containers, in crappy locations.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I just don't understand this "hide it now before you gain more knowledge because having more knowledge will destroy all ideas!"

 

Huh?!

 

I think what briansnat was saying is that find count does to equate to good hides.

 

I hid my first hide after 10 or so finds. It is still in place after 5+ years with almost no maintenance required (one cracked container and a log book replacement). I continue to get logs longer than "TFTC", with most pepole enjoying the walk and the scenery.

 

I have found caches hidden by people with hundreds of finds in crappy containers, in crappy locations.

 

Yes. Consider that one of the ways to get a lot of finds is to spend a lot of time searching for park-n-grabs like LPCs and guard rail caches. A large number of finds doesn't necessarily indicate a breadth of experience. Someone with 20 finds could easily see a lot more different types of hides than someone that has found 200.

[Clan Riffster]

A great idea after 200 hides is still a great idea, just a better executed one.

I agree. While there are the rare exceptions of folks with lots of experience making rookie mistakes, I find that these exceptions are just that. Exceptions. Experience is an awesome teacher, for those who are willing and able to listen to it. There is no need to dismiss suggestions involving patience.

[+Markwell]

Consider 528 to be an absolute minimum instead of a goal to shoot for. This graphic kind of shows how I look at the 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.

 

So here's one part:

Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can.

I think the caches get murky when they're less than 600 feet. But that being said, I would certainly not place a cache knowingly closer than 550 feet, because the GPS can have an error of up to 30 feet. If I want to be sure to get my cache listed, I'd make sure it was well over the 550 feet, and even more likely to be more than 600 feet away from any known cache.

 

Then you said:

I understand the rule is for making sure we don't over saturate an area.

 

Here's the part of the guideline that I think pertains to this:

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.

 

So two goals, (1) Seek out new places rather than the same spot, (2) limit the number of caches. You only listed the second one.

[+Team Cotati]

Well my experience has been that they are fairly strict about it. Unless in the rare event of some extenuating circumstance, they won't allow you to place a physical cache container closer than within 528' of the next nearest physical container.

 

And there's something about stages of a multi that I get confused over too.

[+roiegat]

I emailed the reviewer and while he agreed the theory was good, he still can't approve it with the current distances. He did suggest I talk to the owner of the other caches to see if they are willing to move them slightly so we could be in range. I'm not going to opt for that at this time. The person who's been doing the skippack caches is a great person and I'd rather not create any interference.

 

Although I am still thinking of doing a non-traditional cache of sorts. Still working on those thought and will chat with my geocache friend about them.

 

As for putting a cache, I put one in the back of my house in the wooded area (cache GC1Z3T0). Now from the limited caches I have found I have discovered some ideas. First, I created the container myself. I used an oversized medicine container that was perfect. I spent some time wrapping it in black electrical tape to give it better camoflauge. I printed out the the log and the info on geocaching and placed it in a ziplock bag inside the bottle. I looked for a tree that would work well since the stream does flood in really heavy rains. I found a good tree that not only would be able to hold the cache nicely and be covered - but I could also see from my house.

 

Within thirty minutes of it being published I already had people showing up. My daughter was watching the area while playing and woke me up from a nap. I had a nice time meeting some new people and some old friends.

 

As of now, three people have found it so I think it's been good so far. If you live in the area and would like to check it out feel free. Just be sure to use a little stealth!

[knowschad]

I know that the feet rule here at our local airport is very strict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(In case you missed the reference: Just ask the Senator from Idaho. )

[Mr.Yuck]

I know that the feet rule here at our local airport is very strict.

 

(In case you missed the reference: Just ask the Senator from Idaho. )

 

I would have never got that in a million years without the fine print. With the fine print, that becomes a very funny post.

[+ecanderson]

I know that the feet rule here at our local airport is very strict.

Airport? Aviation? Anything to do with turbulance? "Stall" speed?

 

We have a cache out here that is substantially less than 0.1 mile from the nearest -- but the only route from one to the other without a boat is on the order of half a mile in one direction or the other (opposite sides of a narrow lake). That's another exception I've seen made for good reason.

[knowschad]

I know that the feet rule here at our local airport is very strict.

Airport? Aviation? Anything to do with turbulance? "Stall" speed?

 

We have a cache out here that is substantially less than 0.1 mile from the nearest -- but the only route from one to the other without a boat is on the order of half a mile in one direction or the other (opposite sides of a narrow lake). That's another exception I've seen made for good reason.

 

 

 

Hahahaha! Yeah, "stall speed" is about right. Caused plenty of turbulence, didn't it?

[+chrisrayn]

I emailed the reviewer and while he agreed the theory was good, he still can't approve it with the current distances. He did suggest I talk to the owner of the other caches to see if they are willing to move them slightly so we could be in range. I'm not going to opt for that at this time. The person who's been doing the skippack caches is a great person and I'd rather not create any interference.

 

Although I am still thinking of doing a non-traditional cache of sorts. Still working on those thought and will chat with my geocache friend about them.

 

As for putting a cache, I put one in the back of my house in the wooded area (cache GC1Z3T0). Now from the limited caches I have found I have discovered some ideas. First, I created the container myself. I used an oversized medicine container that was perfect. I spent some time wrapping it in black electrical tape to give it better camoflauge. I printed out the the log and the info on geocaching and placed it in a ziplock bag inside the bottle. I looked for a tree that would work well since the stream does flood in really heavy rains. I found a good tree that not only would be able to hold the cache nicely and be covered - but I could also see from my house.

 

Within thirty minutes of it being published I already had people showing up. My daughter was watching the area while playing and woke me up from a nap. I had a nice time meeting some new people and some old friends.

 

As of now, three people have found it so I think it's been good so far. If you live in the area and would like to check it out feel free. Just be sure to use a little stealth!

 

Now, the social aspect of hiding a cache I hadn't considered. That's another good reason to add to briansnat's case that caches could be placed sooner rather than later.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I was denied a cache location because it was 10ft to close.

Even though it would put a T1 cache in the area, If I tried to move it any farther it would possibly change the T rating.

 

Luckily when I rechecked the coords when I went to move it, the coords changed just enough because of tree cover and the new coords were just enough.

 

Okay, did ANYone else but me see a red-eyed, time-traveling android with a chrome-plated skeleton when he said T1, or is that just me?

No but I did envision a red dyed, grime collecting rusting out altoid tin.

[Mr.Yuck]

I know that the feet rule here at our local airport is very strict.

Airport? Aviation? Anything to do with turbulance? "Stall" speed?

 

We have a cache out here that is substantially less than 0.1 mile from the nearest -- but the only route from one to the other without a boat is on the order of half a mile in one direction or the other (opposite sides of a narrow lake). That's another exception I've seen made for good reason.

 

 

 

Hahahaha! Yeah, "stall speed" is about right. Caused plenty of turbulence, didn't it?

 

Heeeeeeey Oooooooohhh!

 

I don't get it.

[+bittsen]

I know that the feet rule here at our local airport is very strict.

Airport? Aviation? Anything to do with turbulance? "Stall" speed?

 

We have a cache out here that is substantially less than 0.1 mile from the nearest -- but the only route from one to the other without a boat is on the order of half a mile in one direction or the other (opposite sides of a narrow lake). That's another exception I've seen made for good reason.

 

 

 

Hahahaha! Yeah, "stall speed" is about right. Caused plenty of turbulence, didn't it?

 

Heeeeeeey Oooooooohhh!

 

I don't get it.

 

Yeah, me neither.

Inside jokes are hardly ever funny to the rest of the world. Must be a Minnesota thing.

[GOF and Bacall]

I believe it is a foot tapping, airport men's room reference.

[+wimseyguy]

Exactly-but only people from Idaho, Minnesota, or those who read the news would get it.

[+bittsen]

I believe it is a foot tapping, airport men's room reference.

 

Oh, you mean that thing that was in the news a LONG time ago?

 

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but those jokes are ancient now.

[GOF and Bacall]

That fits. If you read it in aTHE Buffalo paper it isn't news, it's history. Or a release from the county's Democratic party chairman.

 

I almost forgot, Bittsen, you aren't a fan of history, are you?.

[+bittsen]

That fits. If you read it in aTHE Buffalo paper it isn't news, it's history. Or a release from the county's Democratic party chairman.

 

I almost forgot, Bittsen, you aren't a fan of history, are you?.

 

It's not so much that I'm not a fan of history but more that it involves memorization. I suck at memorizing things. I work on logic. History isn't logical.

 

It's the emotional, sentimental, attachment to historical objects, times, memories that I am not fond of.

For instance, though it's cool to preserve the ancient pyramids and all, do you recognize that many wars are fough over historical emotionalistic sentimentalism? (OK, I pretty much made up the string of words but it gives the picture i was painting). Many religious conflicts are also based on sentimental historical emotionalism. It's absolutely stupid.

Much of the middle east conflicts are based on historical conflicts. If everyone let them go, we would live in a much more peaceful place.

 

This turned into a political rant, didn't it?

 

Back on the topic of geocaching. There are very few "historical" caches. Those should be maintined as long as possible. The rest, archive them when they aren't viable.

If that opens space for 512 feet apart geospew, so be it. One day there will be someone who maintains that the sections of geospew are historic and should be preserved.

 

Till then, the 512 rule is, as far as I know, a concrete stipulation as the the MINIMUM distance between physical caches.

[+ecanderson]

 

Yeah, me neither.

Inside jokes are hardly ever funny to the rest of the world. Must be a Minnesota thing.

I ain't from MN, and it didn't seem that obscure a reference to me.

 

Thought of another exception. We have a pair of caches separated by more than a water boundary up here. With some of our weird geography, we've also got an impassible canyon area with caches on opposite sides that I doubt are separated by the full 0.1.

Edited September 26, 2009 by ecanderson

[+TheChagnons]

 

My BEST piece of advice though: find at LEAST 200 caches before you do your first hide. And, if you DO hide a mystery cache, try to find around 2-5 before you ever make one yourself. By then, you'll have a much fuller knowledge of what makes a good cache hide, what locations attract the least amount of muggle attention, what locations are most rain/flood proof, and what containers need the least maintenance. Many containers (i.e. Butter tubs), after all, are a horrible idea, and that's just something you learn with more experience.[/b]

 

While I only have 18 finds so far, my friend has over 500. She would be the once who would actually hid it. I was just trying to find out if we could hide it..

 

I completely disagree with the above advice. If the urge to hide a cache strikes you, go ahead and hide it. Don't worry about reaching a certain number of finds before you can hide a cache. There are people who hide great caches with just a couple of finds under their belts and some people with thousands of finds who hide crappy caches.

 

I agree with this statement. My family only has around 55 finds, but we were anxious to hide a cache in an excellent location right down the road from our home. We paid attention to what containers we found were dry, which were wet, ways people hid their caches and did a LOT of reading up here on the forums. So far, so good, all of our feedback has been good regarding our hidden cache.

[Clan Riffster]

Many religious conflicts are also based on sentimental historical emotionalism.

I always chuckle when I read about clashing religious groups.

Seems like a pair of 10 year olds arguing about who has the better invisible friend.

[GOF and Bacall]

That fits. If you read it in aTHE Buffalo paper it isn't news, it's history. Or a release from the county's Democratic party chairman.

 

I almost forgot, Bittsen, you aren't a fan of history, are you?.

 

It's not so much that I'm not a fan of history but more that it involves memorization. I suck at memorizing things. I work on logic. History isn't logical.

 

It's the emotional, sentimental, attachment to historical objects, times, memories that I am not fond of.

For instance, though it's cool to preserve the ancient pyramids and all, do you recognize that many wars are fough over historical emotionalistic sentimentalism? (OK, I pretty much made up the string of words but it gives the picture i was painting). Many religious conflicts are also based on sentimental historical emotionalism. It's absolutely stupid.

Much of the middle east conflicts are based on historical conflicts. If everyone let them go, we would live in a much more peaceful place.

 

This turned into a political rant, didn't it?

 

Back on the topic of geocaching. There are very few "historical" caches. Those should be maintined as long as possible. The rest, archive them when they aren't viable.

If that opens space for 512 feet apart geospew, so be it. One day there will be someone who maintains that the sections of geospew are historic and should be preserved.

 

Till then, the 512 rule is, as far as I know, a concrete stipulation as the the MINIMUM distance between physical caches.

 

Dadgum few and I believe the number you are looking for is 528.

 

Didn't mean to set you off. Just look'n for a chuckle.

[+bittsen]

That fits. If you read it in aTHE Buffalo paper it isn't news, it's history. Or a release from the county's Democratic party chairman.

 

I almost forgot, Bittsen, you aren't a fan of history, are you?.

 

It's not so much that I'm not a fan of history but more that it involves memorization. I suck at memorizing things. I work on logic. History isn't logical.

 

It's the emotional, sentimental, attachment to historical objects, times, memories that I am not fond of.

For instance, though it's cool to preserve the ancient pyramids and all, do you recognize that many wars are fough over historical emotionalistic sentimentalism? (OK, I pretty much made up the string of words but it gives the picture i was painting). Many religious conflicts are also based on sentimental historical emotionalism. It's absolutely stupid.

Much of the middle east conflicts are based on historical conflicts. If everyone let them go, we would live in a much more peaceful place.

 

This turned into a political rant, didn't it?

 

Back on the topic of geocaching. There are very few "historical" caches. Those should be maintined as long as possible. The rest, archive them when they aren't viable.

If that opens space for 512 feet apart geospew, so be it. One day there will be someone who maintains that the sections of geospew are historic and should be preserved.

 

Till then, the 512 rule is, as far as I know, a concrete stipulation as the the MINIMUM distance between physical caches.

 

Dadgum few and I believe the number you are looking for is 528.

 

Didn't mean to set you off. Just look'n for a chuckle.

 

Yes, 528.

 

Dadgummed gremlins climbed in the puter and messed with the numbers!!

 

(OK, I've been talking memory and hard drives and such for the last couple days. 512 was stuck in my head)

Edited September 26, 2009 by bittsen

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Unfortunately, you all have completely derailed this subject with completely off-topic posts.

 

I'm closing this one and if the OP needs additional information once a cache is actually going to be placed, please feel free to start another thread.