Jump to content

Placement of geocache sites, when is enough, enough?


geomarkp

Recommended Posts

Hey Folks,

 

I've been geocaching for a longtime, but this is the first time I have posted here. I've noticed near my home that the number of geocache sites has increased dramatically over the years. Of course, geocaching has become more and more popular, so it's obvious to expect to see more of them pop up over time, but when is enough, enough? I'm curious if there is general policy or protocol, when it comes to the location where geocache sites are placed or the density of sites in a general location. I live close to a park and on some of the main trails there seems to be a geocache site every 0.25 miles or so. Also, there are a large number of sites placed off trail. In my opinion, I've always thought of geocache sites as being few and far between and it was considered an adventure to look for them. Also, next to trash and crime, one of the bigger issues in the park is foot traffic and the creation of side trails where they don't belong. There are signs everywhere to remind folks to stay on the main trails and with such a high density of geocache sites, there are a number of spider trails that have popped up. Is it feasible to get some of these excessive geocache sites removed, so we retain our natural surroundings. I love to geocache with family and friends, but when is enough, enough?

 

Thanks, Mark

Link to comment

If you know for a fact that the caches are violating park regulations feel free to report them to the reviewer who published them. You might want to check with the owner first though, because he may have permission to place the caches off trail.

 

As far as the saturation of caches in many areas, a lot of people see this as a good thing.

Link to comment

I know what you mean, there's about 500 geocaches in a 5 mile radius of my house. However, not all of them are what you and others might consider to be a good cache. There's a rating system so you know if you'll be able to get to it or if its too easy. I completely agree with you about keeping nature intact. However, you can't really expect caches to remain intact if they weren't placed off the beaten trail a little bit. There's only so many places on trail you'd be able to hide a cache no matter what size especially with all the muggles around to see you. So its kind of a give and take situation imho. I'm a huge supporter of finding your own path while hiking as long as you respect nature and are responsible. Keep trash off the ground and don't destroy the animal homes. As for the general guideline, i've read a few times that people find caches spread out around 0.1 miles apart. I think this is pretty rediculous. I would enjoy going on a 2 mile hike with my dog and finding a few caches along the way. I would respectfully suggest to your local moderator to clean out some of the caches. As far as i understand, he should know where and what all of the caches are and should be able to pick out the ones that are no longer used much or are just bad caches and email the COs to have them removed.

Link to comment

Great questions, and ones that society must wrestle with constantly. Access vs. Resource Protection. Tough choices to make no doubt, but I believe that Geocaching is a force for good, and is not necessarily contradictory to good resource management.

 

I don't support the notion that removing Geocaches will impact the problems that you address.

Link to comment

I would respectfully suggest to your local moderator to clean out some of the caches. As far as i understand, he should know where and what all of the caches are and should be able to pick out the ones that are no longer used much or are just bad caches and email the COs to have them removed.

I think you're a bit misinformed. :anibad:

* Moderators are in the forums, cache reviewers approve and disapprove cache listing and occassionally archive them.

* I won't even address the rest of it.

Link to comment

Given that the guidelines suggest 0.1 miles (528 feet) as the minimum distance between caches, and knowing that there are plenty of areas with that sort of saturation, I don't see that your 0.25 mile average is much of a problem.

 

Keep in mind, please, that there are a lot more geocachers in general since the early days (can't tell what your "early days" are, nor where your "oversaturated area" is, because you chose to post with a blatent sock puppet account) and most of those new geocachers, sooner or later, are going to want to participate in the cahce hiding side of the game.

 

As for the social trails aspect... I totally understand that many land managers see that as a problem, and their opinion is what really counts, but I personally do not have much issue with them. They will grow over within a season, in most areas, and animals create social trails as well. *With some exceptions*, to me, that issue is mostly a big todo about nothing.

Link to comment

In Arizona, there was a group of people who felt that no one at all should be allowed to sully use a particular area of land adjacent to homes. They banned geocaching early on despite local efforts. They wont be happy until no one can hike or otherwise enjoy the land ... except for the few who had the large enough income to buy homes adjacent to the land.

 

With any human activity, there is the potential for noticable effects. Those spider trails you complain about were there prior to geocaching too, and will likely continue to be created even if geocaching was banned there. Its human nature to find another route. At least geocachers have a good sense of caring for the environment in things like cito etc.

Link to comment

Given that the guidelines suggest 0.1 miles (528 feet) as the minimum distance between caches, and knowing that there are plenty of areas with that sort of saturation, I don't see that your 0.25 mile average is much of a problem.

 

Keep in mind, please, that there are a lot more geocachers in general since the early days (can't tell what your "early days" are, nor where your "oversaturated area" is, because you chose to post with a blatent sock puppet account) and most of those new geocachers, sooner or later, are going to want to participate in the cahce hiding side of the game.

 

As for the social trails aspect... I totally understand that many land managers see that as a problem, and their opinion is what really counts, but I personally do not have much issue with them. They will grow over within a season, in most areas, and animals create social trails as well. *With some exceptions*, to me, that issue is mostly a big todo about nothing.

 

Animals do not create social trails.

 

Parks with prohibitions against off trail travel, is it common for those parks to have a waiver if someone thinks that social trails created by humans that might grow over in a season or two, are in fact permissible?

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

Given that the guidelines suggest 0.1 miles (528 feet) as the minimum distance between caches, and knowing that there are plenty of areas with that sort of saturation, I don't see that your 0.25 mile average is much of a problem.

 

Keep in mind, please, that there are a lot more geocachers in general since the early days (can't tell what your "early days" are, nor where your "oversaturated area" is, because you chose to post with a blatent sock puppet account) and most of those new geocachers, sooner or later, are going to want to participate in the cahce hiding side of the game.

 

As for the social trails aspect... I totally understand that many land managers see that as a problem, and their opinion is what really counts, but I personally do not have much issue with them. They will grow over within a season, in most areas, and animals create social trails as well. *With some exceptions*, to me, that issue is mostly a big todo about nothing.

Animals do not create social trails.

One deer followed another deer that was following a rabbit that followed a mouse. Its a social trail. now, put your shirt on, puleeze!!

 

Edited to respond to your edit:

Parks with prohibitions against off trail travel, is it common for those parks to have a waiver if someone thinks that social trails created by humans that might grow over in a season or two, are in fact permissible?

I doubt it. I'm sure that I very clearly stated that it was MY opinion that I was stating. I don't think that any land manager that feels that manmade social trails is a problem is likely to give a waver just because I stated my opinion. Do you? Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Given that the guidelines suggest 0.1 miles (528 feet) as the minimum distance between caches, and knowing that there are plenty of areas with that sort of saturation, I don't see that your 0.25 mile average is much of a problem.

 

Keep in mind, please, that there are a lot more geocachers in general since the early days (can't tell what your "early days" are, nor where your "oversaturated area" is, because you chose to post with a blatent sock puppet account) and most of those new geocachers, sooner or later, are going to want to participate in the cahce hiding side of the game.

 

As for the social trails aspect... I totally understand that many land managers see that as a problem, and their opinion is what really counts, but I personally do not have much issue with them. They will grow over within a season, in most areas, and animals create social trails as well. *With some exceptions*, to me, that issue is mostly a big todo about nothing.

Animals do not create social trails.

One deer followed another deer that was following a rabbit that followed a mouse. Its a social trail. now, put your shirt on, puleeze!!

 

Edited to respond to your edit:

Parks with prohibitions against off trail travel, is it common for those parks to have a waiver if someone thinks that social trails created by humans that might grow over in a season or two, are in fact permissible?

I doubt it. I'm sure that I very clearly stated that it was MY opinion that I was stating. I don't think that any land manager that feels that manmade social trails is a problem is likely to give a waver just because I stated my opinion. Do you?

 

In response to your thoughtful request: No.

Link to comment

Hey Folks,

 

I've been geocaching for a longtime, but this is the first time I have posted here. I've noticed near my home that the number of geocache sites has increased dramatically over the years. Of course, geocaching has become more and more popular, so it's obvious to expect to see more of them pop up over time, but when is enough, enough? I'm curious if there is general policy or protocol, when it comes to the location where geocache sites are placed or the density of sites in a general location. I live close to a park and on some of the main trails there seems to be a geocache site every 0.25 miles or so. Also, there are a large number of sites placed off trail. In my opinion, I've always thought of geocache sites as being few and far between and it was considered an adventure to look for them. Also, next to trash and crime, one of the bigger issues in the park is foot traffic and the creation of side trails where they don't belong. There are signs everywhere to remind folks to stay on the main trails and with such a high density of geocache sites, there are a number of spider trails that have popped up. Is it feasible to get some of these excessive geocache sites removed, so we retain our natural surroundings. I love to geocache with family and friends, but when is enough, enough?

 

Thanks, Mark

 

Obvious troll is obvious?

Link to comment

Hmmm. I wish I had that problem of too many caches. From a 5 mile radius of my home, there are 14 caches. And I own two of them. One person's problem is another person's dream!

 

No kidding! I've been geocaching for <4 months, and I only have 5 caches withing 10 miles of my home that I haven't done yet. Other than that, I'm done with my area!

 

Sucks!

Link to comment

Hmmm. I wish I had that problem of too many caches. From a 5 mile radius of my home, there are 14 caches. And I own two of them. One person's problem is another person's dream!

 

No kidding! I've been geocaching for <4 months, and I only have 5 caches withing 10 miles of my home that I haven't done yet. Other than that, I'm done with my area!

 

Sucks!

 

 

But you still have all of Tuscan to log. It's not that far from you.

Link to comment

 

But you still have all of Tuscan to log. It's not that far from you.

 

Holy Christ! Tuscan is far. In Italy??

 

(sorry, it's something that those of us who live here have to comment on...Lol)

 

Seriously though, Tucson is an hour drive round trip, and the man and I do it 16 times a payperiod. So to just geocache on the fly is harder to do with the painful, constant interstate driving.

 

I think I just need to move, that's all. To a place with trees, and trails, and grass.

 

It was 70 degrees today though :anibad:

Link to comment

Hey Folks,

 

I've been geocaching for a longtime, but this is the first time I have posted here. I've noticed near my home that the number of geocache sites has increased dramatically over the years. Of course, geocaching has become more and more popular, so it's obvious to expect to see more of them pop up over time, but when is enough, enough? I'm curious if there is general policy or protocol, when it comes to the location where geocache sites are placed or the density of sites in a general location. I live close to a park and on some of the main trails there seems to be a geocache site every 0.25 miles or so. Also, there are a large number of sites placed off trail. In my opinion, I've always thought of geocache sites as being few and far between and it was considered an adventure to look for them. Also, next to trash and crime, one of the bigger issues in the park is foot traffic and the creation of side trails where they don't belong. There are signs everywhere to remind folks to stay on the main trails and with such a high density of geocache sites, there are a number of spider trails that have popped up. Is it feasible to get some of these excessive geocache sites removed, so we retain our natural surroundings. I love to geocache with family and friends, but when is enough, enough?

 

Thanks, Mark

 

I know what you mean, there's about 500 geocaches in a 5 mile radius of my house. However, not all of them are what you and others might consider to be a good cache. There's a rating system so you know if you'll be able to get to it or if its too easy. I completely agree with you about keeping nature intact. However, you can't really expect caches to remain intact if they weren't placed off the beaten trail a little bit. There's only so many places on trail you'd be able to hide a cache no matter what size especially with all the muggles around to see you. So its kind of a give and take situation imho. I'm a huge supporter of finding your own path while hiking as long as you respect nature and are responsible. Keep trash off the ground and don't destroy the animal homes. As for the general guideline, i've read a few times that people find caches spread out around 0.1 miles apart. I think this is pretty rediculous. I would enjoy going on a 2 mile hike with my dog and finding a few caches along the way. I would respectfully suggest to your local moderator to clean out some of the caches. As far as i understand, he should know where and what all of the caches are and should be able to pick out the ones that are no longer used much or are just bad caches and email the COs to have them removed.

 

So.....

 

Where in Arizona do you guy(s) live... :unsure:

Link to comment

I know what you mean, there's about 500 geocaches in a 5 mile radius of my house.

 

Where is it?! I think I smell a geocaching trip...

 

lol... Dallas, Texas. North part. However, most of the terrain here keeps them all at a 2.0 or less. Sucks, i enjoy mountains. I need to get out of texas and back to the Rocky Mountains where i feel like i belong better. But those people from colorado aren't too nice about visitors in their lands. Strange how all that beauty they don't like to share with people who truly appreciate it.

Link to comment

Animals do not create social trails.

One deer followed another deer that was following a rabbit that followed a mouse. Its a social trail.

 

That's correct. Animals DO create social trails. On the rare occasion when I do bushwack, I always follow the animal trail because they know the easiest way across that particular terrain.

Link to comment

I know what you mean, there's about 500 geocaches in a 5 mile radius of my house.

 

Where is it?! I think I smell a geocaching trip...

 

lol... Dallas, Texas. North part. However, most of the terrain here keeps them all at a 2.0 or less. Sucks, i enjoy mountains. I need to get out of texas and back to the Rocky Mountains where i feel like i belong better. But those people from colorado aren't too nice about visitors in their lands. Strange how all that beauty they don't like to share with people who truly appreciate it.

 

huh? :D I guess I didn't get the memo on that.

 

b6fb23bb-e89f-40ec-9976-721f6565cade.jpg

 

I guess I will be checking license plates at the state lines next time we have our annual 4x4 event.

Link to comment

I know what you mean, there's about 500 geocaches in a 5 mile radius of my house.

 

Where is it?! I think I smell a geocaching trip...

 

lol... Dallas, Texas. North part. However, most of the terrain here keeps them all at a 2.0 or less. Sucks, i enjoy mountains. I need to get out of texas and back to the Rocky Mountains where i feel like i belong better. But those people from colorado aren't too nice about visitors in their lands. Strange how all that beauty they don't like to share with people who truly appreciate it.

 

huh? :) I guess I didn't get the memo on that.

 

b6fb23bb-e89f-40ec-9976-721f6565cade.jpg

 

I guess I will be checking license plates at the state lines next time we have our annual 4x4 event.

 

Oh well SURE. Ya gotta KNOW someone who lives there FIRST. :D

 

It's all about who knows who. Then of course there's favoritism. :D

Link to comment

Guess that I've gotta move to some place where the deer are smarter.

 

Yeah, I've tried the old "follow the animal trail" trick a few times. And the truth is that you usually end up in the middle HAM with relatively few appealing alternatives for continuing to the cache. Steep uphill/down hill with the animal trail all of a sudden invisible, nasty bush whacking ahead and stuff like that.

 

A relatively bad idea from my personal experience.

 

So if you aren't very certain of exactly where the animal trail leads, I'd recommend not trying to follow them.

 

Deer, as it turns out, are not into geocaching all that much. :D:):D

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

b6fb23bb-e89f-40ec-9976-721f6565cade.jpg

 

Pssst! It's the fake sprinklerhead 200ft off the trail.

 

I've seen some dense areas and some areas which appeared dense. I have revised my opinion on cache density and think it's only a problem if the containers or hide are effectively unworthy. That 'unworthy' behing a bit subjective, but if you are hiding a lock & lock behind a bush, 528 feet from another and another and another, it may be a good idea to stop and put some creativity into the hides. Maybe a fake rock or fake tree stump, something other than yet another plastic tub.

 

While evil hides vex me (like totally verily and forsooth, like) I do appreciate the effort someone puts into one.

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment

lol... Dallas, Texas. North part. However, most of the terrain here keeps them all at a 2.0 or less. Sucks, i enjoy mountains. I need to get out of texas and back to the Rocky Mountains where i feel like i belong better. But those people from colorado aren't too nice about visitors in their lands. Strange how all that beauty they don't like to share with people who truly appreciate it.

Actually, it's just a Texas thing. Has to do with busloads coming up and hitting the slopes for the first time - feeling fully assured that they can figure it all out without lessons! :rolleyes:
Link to comment

Guys,

 

Thanks for those who provided some thought provoking discussion to my original question.

 

A few additional comments:

 

Don't get me wrong, I love to geocache and don't want to necessarily impose any limits, but wanted to better understand if there were general guidelines or policies regarding placement of geocache sites. Based on the feedback, it appears there is a general 0.1 mile rule.

 

I live in the Phoenix area and was referring to South Mtn Park, which sees probably more traffic then most parks in the country and has a high density of geocache sites. My 0.25 mile estimate was probably a bit conservative. Out of curiosity, I will talk with the park and ask if they have their own guidelines.

 

Even though I do some limited geocaching in the park and around town , most of my cache searching adventures are elsewhere in the state when out camping, hiking or backpacking.

 

Touchstone's comments about 'access vs resource protection' were right on. This is an issue we face with any outdoor adventures (ie. fishing, hunting, biking, 4wd, hiking) and not just geocaching. We need to do our best to manage our lands effectively, w/o restriction.

 

As for spider trails, yes animals do create trails, but man creates even bigger ones. You can pick up any topo map from 30-60 yrs ago and compare to today or review satellite images over time and see how the landscape changes. I fully agree that it's human nature to find another route, assuming that route is one that is the shortest distance between two points or offers some other intriguing reason to create a path, trail or road. With respect to placing geocache sites off trail, you have certainly created an intriguing reason to create a path, but in a high density park you create multiple spider trails that are not conducive to the parks policies and not conducive to leave no trace principles.

 

I'm an assistance scoutmaster with a local Boy Scout troop and spend a lot of time in the outdoors. We spend a lot of time teaching the boys about outdoor ethics, survival and leave no trace principles.

 

I think that geocaching is a great sport (like most outdoor activities) and above all, it gets people outdoors, offers a sense of fun and adventure. It's also great exercise and gets folks (especially kids) out of the house and away from the tv and video games.

 

As for comments about being a sock puppet, sorry didn't mean to hide behind anything. I saw a Forum link on the www.geocache.com site and decided to post a question here, that simple. Also, I don't make a habit out of logging my adventures, just something that I don't have interest in, like a lot of others I know that geocache.

 

Have fun and enjoy the outdoors.

 

Mark

 

ps. for those who offered some less then thought provoking comments, drink and beer (or two) and chill out. For me, I like to drink my homebrew. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I was just in south mountain park this weekend. As an almost native arizonan, and one in phoenix for many years, Ive seen spider trails there long before geocaching was even around. Please dont get the caches there eliminated because of your agenda. South Mountain park, and phoenix parks in general have a good relationship with geocaching. Please dont ruin it for us.

Link to comment

Looking at the general over view of the south mountain area the caches seem to somewhat follow a trail. The area is being molested in general and unless yo restrict the people then this will continue to happen. I think geocachers in general are pretty well educated about conservation. I know the couple of caches i picked up in south mountain so far i have Cito'd tons of glass from beer bottles and other trash. I personally leave the area better than i found it.

Link to comment

Hey Folks,

 

I've been geocaching for a longtime, . . .

In my opinion, I've always thought of geocache sites as being few and far between and it was considered an adventure to look for them. I love to geocache with family and friends, but when is enough, enough?

Thanks, Mark

Mark, South Mountain is basically like the rest of Phoenix, full off caches. If you don't like them then just don't look for them. It is called urban sprawl, and I don't like it, so I don't venture there.

 

How do you know that geocachers not random hikers created the social paths. Do cachers have different footprints that separate us from the general public?

And if you think as caches being few and far between then why haven't you bothered to look for this Cache its in a local park. Or is the long long hike just not your cup of tea.

Link to comment

Very often, geocache hiders follow existing social or animal trails when looking for places to hide a cache. They will usually start off on the main, official, park trail, but when they see something leading off from that, they want to see where it leads, so they follow it. Not infrequently, a geocache hide ends up being placed at the far end of that trail.

 

Now, you go to find the cache, and you find that there is a trail leading right to the cache. You assume the trail exists because of the cache, but it is very possible that the opposite is true.

Link to comment

That's understandable. Nobody likes Texans.

:)

 

WOW! Be sure not to ask for any help or advice if you come to Texas to cache. I'm sure the pictures of you on your profile are already being circulated on local websites. :D

 

This is just a courtasy post from a fellow Californian who happens to spend most of the year in Texas. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Very often, geocache hiders follow existing social or animal trails when looking for places to hide a cache. They will usually start off on the main, official, park trail, but when they see something leading off from that, they want to see where it leads, so they follow it. Not infrequently, a geocache hide ends up being placed at the far end of that trail.

 

Now, you go to find the cache, and you find that there is a trail leading right to the cache. You assume the trail exists because of the cache, but it is very possible that the opposite is true.

 

WOW, that's rather insightful.

Did you come up with that theory all by yourself?

 

I bet it's accurate as well.

Link to comment

Very often, geocache hiders follow existing social or animal trails when looking for places to hide a cache. They will usually start off on the main, official, park trail, but when they see something leading off from that, they want to see where it leads, so they follow it. Not infrequently, a geocache hide ends up being placed at the far end of that trail.

Now, you go to find the cache, and you find that there is a trail leading right to the cache. You assume the trail exists because of the cache, but it is very possible that the opposite is true.

WOW, that's rather insightful.

Did you come up with that theory all by yourself?

I bet it's accurate as well.

Actually... no. It was a Wikipedia article. I would link to it, but it was recently edited by someone from Oregon. :rolleyes:
Link to comment

huh? ;) I guess I didn't get the memo on that.

 

b6fb23bb-e89f-40ec-9976-721f6565cade.jpg

 

I guess I will be checking license plates at the state lines next time we have our annual 4x4 event.

Looks like the San Juans in Colorado, with Red Mountain in the background. I love and dearly miss that area!

That peak, I believe, is Mt. Guyot (13,300') with Bald Mtn behind it (13,500') up by Breckenridge. In this photo below, you can see Breck sans snow in the center.

The caches up in the high peaks get found very few times during the season. Plus they are few and far between. :lol: No caching trails here. :D LOVE IT! :blink:

 

IMG_1334.jpg

Link to comment

Very often, geocache hiders follow existing social or animal trails when looking for places to hide a cache. They will usually start off on the main, official, park trail, but when they see something leading off from that, they want to see where it leads, so they follow it. Not infrequently, a geocache hide ends up being placed at the far end of that trail.

 

Now, you go to find the cache, and you find that there is a trail leading right to the cache. You assume the trail exists because of the cache, but it is very possible that the opposite is true.

 

WOW, that's rather insightful.

Did you come up with that theory all by yourself?

 

I bet it's accurate as well.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment

So, this topic popped up in a local forum and sparked my interest to do a bit of research. As a result I gathered the following information regarding South Mountain Park.

 

From Wikipedia

 

South Mountain Park in Phoenix, Arizona, is the largest city park in the United States, one of the largest urban parks in North America and in the world. It has been designated as a Phoenix Point of Pride. South Mountain Park preserves in a natural state a mountainous area of 16,283 acres (65.89 km²) or approximately 25.5 mi² of native desert vegetation. Originally called Phoenix Mountain Park, it was formed in 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge sold its initial 13,000 acres (53 km²) to the city of Phoenix for $17,000. It has since been expanded through bond programs during 1970s into the early 1980s. It is located south of central Phoenix, hence the name. Since the naming, suburban growth has nearly surrounded the park. Ahwatukee now borders to the south and Laveen to the west. The park's lookout point rises over 1000 feet (305 m) above the desert floor. Beyond the roads leading to ramadas and the summit, the park features 58 miles (93 km) of trails for cycling, hiking and horseback riding. Much of the original park infrastructure was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the early 1930s. The landmark Mystery Castle is located within its foothills.

 

As far as the City of Phoenix stance on Geocaching, I was only able to locate 1 page on the City website citing Geocaching as a problem. It reads as follows:

 

From

City of Phoenix Archaeology Section

Geocaching

 

The City of Phoenix contains many archaeological sites within its boundaries, especially in its mountain preserves and open spaces. These archaeological sites have great scientific and cultural value, but are fragile, irreplaceable, and potentially subject to accidental harm or intentional vandalism. Many of the sites are not marked or identified by signage so as to not attract attention to them. In order to best preserve these sites, no activities are allowed at the sites which could directly or indirectly cause them harm, or broadcast their locations to the general public. Pursuant to PCC 24-36, Entering park areas closed to public use, and PCC 24-37, Vandalism in a park, geocaching at archaeological sites located on City of Phoenix property is not allowed. Violation of these ordinances is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any geocaches that are found at archaeological sites will be immediately removed.

 

As far as if the City has an issue with Geocaching... I think not, as I was able to locate the following on the activities calendar:

 

From "Discover Phoenix" News Posting

 

Are you looking for a few adventure? Plan to attend "Geocaching" from 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 17. This introductory workshop will teach participants about the contemporary sport of geocaching including discussion about handheld global positioning systems as a serious tool for navigating while hiking, boating or locating hidden caches, as a sport or game. There is no fee for the workshop but registration is required.

 

I have also seen instances of Geocaching classes held at City of Phoenix Libraries (Although none are currently scheduled).

 

These Activities tell me that someone in the City Office knows of the website and how to use it, thus keeping caches out of the protected areas of South Mountain Park. That being said, with 132 Geocaches available in the "World's Largest Municiple Park" I personally don't think that is a bad thing, and plan to snag as many :blink: as I can in the area. I also ponder why the city would want to remove them and lose the GeoTourists that come to visit this "City of Phoenix Point of Pride" and since we (as Geocachers) Practice CITO and help them maintain the park?

 

Hopefully my research provided you with the answers you sought to obtain via telephone and provided those who are not from the area with a desire to snag some ;) 's of their own on their next trip through town and enjoy this landmark for its beauty and caches.

 

Roughly the park is centered at N 33° 20.434 W 112° 04.168

And here is a Bookmark list of all caches within the park boundaries as of today.

Edited by AZ Cache Family
Link to comment

I have an earthcache in South Mountain Park, the second or third earthcache placed in the state (I placed the first 3 earthcaches in Arizona before they became popular). At the time, I had to get permission from the city and park to place the cache. I got the impression that they were fine with all geocaching activity in their park system. They knew all about geocaching and had no hesitation in granting permission for the earthcache.

Link to comment

I've noticed near my home that the number of geocache sites has increased dramatically over the years. Of course, geocaching has become more and more popular, so it's obvious to expect to see more of them pop up over time, but when is enough, enough?

 

Well, when you live in wide open spaces perhaps this vexation could be warranted. However, when you live on an island (like me), your options become limited. Oh, and to answer your question, never! I hope we pass 1,000,000 cache hides around the Earth by the end of this year!

Link to comment

Hey Folks,

 

I've been geocaching for a longtime, but this is the first time I have posted here. I've noticed near my home that the number of geocache sites has increased dramatically over the years. Of course, geocaching has become more and more popular, so it's obvious to expect to see more of them pop up over time, but when is enough, enough? I'm curious if there is general policy or protocol, when it comes to the location where geocache sites are placed or the density of sites in a general location. I live close to a park and on some of the main trails there seems to be a geocache site every 0.25 miles or so. Also, there are a large number of sites placed off trail. In my opinion, I've always thought of geocache sites as being few and far between and it was considered an adventure to look for them. Also, next to trash and crime, one of the bigger issues in the park is foot traffic and the creation of side trails where they don't belong. There are signs everywhere to remind folks to stay on the main trails and with such a high density of geocache sites, there are a number of spider trails that have popped up. Is it feasible to get some of these excessive geocache sites removed, so we retain our natural surroundings. I love to geocache with family and friends, but when is enough, enough?

 

Thanks, Mark

 

I know of several parks with no geocache that have the "spider trails" you speak of. Geocaching is not normaly a highenough volume activity to produce these types of trails. Sometimes you do get "geotrails", but those are not worn to the dirt paths like it seems you are talking about.

 

Question to Mark. These caches that you think have created "spider trails", how many finds per year do they have?

Link to comment

Ok, let me explain myself... When i took a week trip to RMNF we were greeted by a few different Colorado natives who were not very kind about us visiting. I should not have said it that way, i did not mean that everyone from Colorado is a jerk, just all i have met. Now on the other side, From what i've noticed, Texans are very open to outsiders... except canadians, hahaha j/k. I love this state... i hate it's terrain.

Link to comment

Ok, let me explain myself... When i took a week trip to RMNF we were greeted by a few different Colorado natives who were not very kind about us visiting. I should not have said it that way, i did not mean that everyone from Colorado is a jerk, just all i have met. Now on the other side, From what i've noticed, Texans are very open to outsiders... except canadians, hahaha j/k. I love this state... i hate it's terrain.

Sorry that you had a bad experience from fellow 'radoans. You are more than welcome in my book. Just leave that Snoogans fellow back in TX. :P:lol:

Link to comment

Back OT. I have hiked South Mountain a few times and got some of the caches. Vast majority of them (especially the referenced close ones) are on the National Trail and other marked trails and literally you can get them from the trail. There is no need to create any spider trails (and there are none as far as I have seen near the caches). There are a few caches which are on well used trails that are not officially marked but used by hikers/bicycles and so on. There are none I have seen that are after "area closed" signs.

 

Also keep in mind that while it looks 0.25 mi that is as the crow flies and this is a mountain park with altitude changes and quite a few curves in the trail between caches at times.

 

If you have seen any caches that are in closed areas or seem to be placed off trail and create spider trails I would suggest to contact our cache reviewer who in my experience has been very prompt in handling these type of problems.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...