Natural Boundaires out of the Guidelines

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

I agree with the bolded part. As long as the land owner doesn't care then I never have seen why saturation matters!

 

The recent relaxation (abandonment?) of power trail restrictions tells me that it's not as important as it was once thought to be.

[+thedeadpirate]

1. Are the reviewers active geocachers as well? ie do they go out and find caches on a regular basis?

 

2. Do the reviewers ever place/hide caches themselvs? If they do. WHO reviews the caches THEY hide?

 

3. What is the average number of finds for the reviewers? (ie... The sum of all the finds of all the reviewers divided by the number of reviewers)

 

4. What is the average number of "hides" for the reviewers? (Same formula as #3 but using the number of hides instead)

 

TGC

 

1. Yes

2a. Yes

2b. Other reviewers

3. 1+

4. See #4

 

Seriously, I'm not sure what the relevance of 3 and 4 are, but you'll need to wait until a reviewer answers those.

 

I'm sure it's sufficient on both though. Reviewers are generally selected from among cachers who are active in their play areas.

Edited April 30, 2010 by GeoBain

[+Lil Devil]

1. Are the reviewers active geocachers as well? ie do they go out and find caches on a regular basis?

 

2. Do the reviewers ever place/hide caches themselvs? If they do. WHO reviews the caches THEY hide?

 

3. What is the average number of finds for the reviewers? (ie... The sum of all the finds of all the reviewers divided by the number of reviewers)

 

4. What is the average number of "hides" for the reviewers? (Same formula as #3 but using the number of hides instead)

1. Yes. On average they're probably more active than the average cacher.

 

2. Yes. We can review our own caches, but many times we'll ask another reviewer to do it.

 

3. I'm not going to take the time to actually calculate it but I would guess the average is somewhere between 800 and 1,500.

 

4. My guess would be several dozen.

[+texasgrillchef]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

I agree with the bolded part. As long as the land owner doesn't care then I never have seen why saturation matters!

 

The recent relaxation (abandonment?) of power trail restrictions tells me that it's not as important as it was once thought to be.

 

Well I just thought of another reason WHY the rules may have also relaxed in this area as well.

 

GPSr's are quite abit more accurate then they were 10 years ago when geocaching started. Some of the better GPSr's now regularly get accuracies of LESS than 10'.

 

10 years ago. There weren't very many consumer level GPSr's that had that kind of accuracy on a regular basis.

 

GPSr's will continue to get more accurate even in the next 10 years as well. I saw somewhere about new more accurate GPS satalites being launched with newer better GPS technology. When consumer level GPSr's become available to take advantage of the new satalites we will have even better accuracy in more locations.

 

The more accurate our GPSr's get, the more we can shrink the 528 rule. Of course reviewers and hiders should be subjective as well. There are always areas that could easily handle less distance from each other than other areas. Example I gave in previous post in this thread. (Parking lots)

 

Ie... how many LPC's do we need in the same parking lot at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium, or any other very large parking lot that covers a huge area.

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

1. Are the reviewers active geocachers as well? ie do they go out and find caches on a regular basis?

 

2. Do the reviewers ever place/hide caches themselvs? If they do. WHO reviews the caches THEY hide?

 

3. What is the average number of finds for the reviewers? (ie... The sum of all the finds of all the reviewers divided by the number of reviewers)

 

4. What is the average number of "hides" for the reviewers? (Same formula as #3 but using the number of hides instead)

 

1. Yes. On average they're probably more active than the average cacher.

 

2. Yes. We can review our own caches, but many times we'll ask another reviewer to do it.

 

3. I'm not going to take the time to actually calculate it but I would guess the average is somewhere between 800 and 1,500.

 

4. My guess would be several dozen.

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I assume by the way you answered that you are a reviewer. As far as the answers to Q#3 & Q#4 goes. An estimate was just fine. I should have said I would be happy with an estimate & not exact correct figure.

 

Thank you

 

TGC

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ie... how many LPC's do we need in the same parking lot at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium, or any other very large parking lot that covers a huge area.

As many as the land owner is comfortable allowing and cachers want to hide and maintain. Why not?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Ie... how many LPC's do we need in the same parking lot at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium, or any other very large parking lot that covers a huge area.

As many as the land owner is comfortable allowing and cachers want to hide and maintain. Why not?

I'm blessed, I live in a kind of rural area, but one thing bugs me.

I can zoom out to a level and view 256 caches, one more level up and I exceed 500.

OK I just checked again and now I can hit 489 (shows how long it has been since I bothered), but what I was going to say is I would hate hate hate looking at that map if people could cram as many LPCs into the big box lots because I wouldn't be able see a 15 mile radius.

Hey there would be a nice feature, deactivated, finds, owned and any cache type you unchecked wont be displayed or counted towards the 500.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ie... how many LPC's do we need in the same parking lot at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium, or any other very large parking lot that covers a huge area.

As many as the land owner is comfortable allowing and cachers want to hide and maintain. Why not?

I'm blessed, I live in a kind of rural area, but one thing bugs me.

I can zoom out to a level and view 256 caches, one more level up and I exceed 500.

OK I just checked again and now I can hit 489 (shows how long it has been since I bothered), but what I was going to say is I would hate hate hate looking at that map if people could cram as many LPCs into the big box lots because I wouldn't be able see a 15 mile radius.

Hey there would be a nice feature, deactivated, finds, owned and any cache type you unchecked wont be displayed or counted towards the 500.

That would be cool, if we could have a selection criteria for what we see on the geocaching.com maps.

 

Perhaps you should suggest that to Groundspeak.

 

Until they implement that, download a PQ excluding the types that don't interest you and look at them using the maps in GSAK.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Ie... how many LPC's do we need in the same parking lot at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium, or any other very large parking lot that covers a huge area.

As many as the land owner is comfortable allowing and cachers want to hide and maintain. Why not?

I'm blessed, I live in a kind of rural area, but one thing bugs me.

I can zoom out to a level and view 256 caches, one more level up and I exceed 500.

OK I just checked again and now I can hit 489 (shows how long it has been since I bothered), but what I was going to say is I would hate hate hate looking at that map if people could cram as many LPCs into the big box lots because I wouldn't be able see a 15 mile radius.

Hey there would be a nice feature, deactivated, finds, owned and any cache type you unchecked wont be displayed or counted towards the 500.

That would be cool, if we could have a selection criteria for what we see on the geocaching.com maps.

 

Perhaps you should suggest that to Groundspeak.

 

Until they implement that, download a PQ excluding the types that don't interest you and look at them using the maps in GSAK.

That is why it has been so long since I have bothered checking the GC map.

Well I export the database as a kml then import it into google maps unless I just want a sat view then I use GE.

Once I can afford a laptop I'll want for very little native implementations on gc.com.

[Andronicus]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

 

I agree.

 

The overall result would be quality over quantity, with a bunch of whine and cheese.

You do realize that the quality would not change. You would have the same assortment of good and bad, just less of each. And, new cachers would be effectivly barred from the hiding aspect of the game (judging from a recent thread, I guess some of you would think that is good).

[+NeecesandNephews]

Ie... how many LPC's do we need in the same parking lot at the Dallas Cowboys Stadium, or any other very large parking lot that covers a huge area.

As many as the land owner is comfortable allowing and cachers want to hide and maintain. Why not?

I'm blessed, I live in a kind of rural area, but one thing bugs me.

I can zoom out to a level and view 256 caches, one more level up and I exceed 500.

OK I just checked again and now I can hit 489 (shows how long it has been since I bothered), but what I was going to say is I would hate hate hate looking at that map if people could cram as many LPCs into the big box lots because I wouldn't be able see a 15 mile radius.

Hey there would be a nice feature, deactivated, finds, owned and any cache type you unchecked wont be displayed or counted towards the 500.

That would be cool, if we could have a selection criteria for what we see on the geocaching.com maps.

 

Perhaps you should suggest that to Groundspeak.

 

Until they implement that, download a PQ excluding the types that don't interest you and look at them using the maps in GSAK.

That is why it has been so long since I have bothered checking the GC map.

Well I export the database as a kml then import it into google maps unless I just want a sat view then I use GE.

Once I can afford a laptop I'll want for very little native implementations on gc.com.

 

You dont have to upload or download or parse anything through any outside program!! (like GSAK) Just click on the "Your Pocket Queries" ,look at the list of queries you have run, and click on "preview in google Maps" It shows only what you have specified in your query!! One stop shopping!!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You dont have to upload or download or parse anything through any outside program!! (like GSAK) Just click on the "Your Pocket Queries" ,look at the list of queries you have run, and click on "preview in google Maps" It shows only what you have specified in your query!! One stop shopping!!

Cool! I get into a habit of doing things a certain way and don't explore for other ways. Thanks.

[+NeecesandNephews]

"Noobs" are good for something besides just pokin fun at!

 

I was looking for a way to show a larger area of map without hitting the limit on cache numbers, so I figured out by querying out the stuff I wasn't interested in hunting I could see a greater portion of real estate without an outside program. Sorta stumbled on to it!!

 

edit to add- I first started this type of search after trying to find out how many caches were PM (brought up on another thread) in a given radius, and had to figure out a way to find out.

Edited April 30, 2010 by NeecesandNephews