Too many Caches?

[SpikyTyke]

This was originally posted on yorkshiregeocaching.com, but I have been asked to include it here.

 

This might be a little controversial - however, at the almost exponential rate that caches are being added (I'm guessing here, possibly due to a similar rise in rate for new members), might there need to be some control other than caches can't be within 0.1 miles. In some areas of Leeds I feel like we're reaching saturation point - we might as well place caches every 0.1 miles on every footpath now because we're going to get there sooner or later. I'm not saying the quality is always diluted, because this clearly isn't always the case, although it is sometimes.

 

What about dumping any cache with less than 20 visitors within a year? What about dumping 'of your trolley, or even Motorway Madness? What about limiting the number of caches that an individual can place? (leaving some spaces for new cachers)

 

Any thoughts?

 

Initially comments to the post were :-

- that some clever puzzle caches don't get 20 visitors

- Reckon that this game will strangle itself within a couple of years.

- What about dumping micros and nanos EXCEPT when in APPROPRIATE locations for that size cache

 

I notice that there is scope within the guidelines for limiting caches in areas of saturation - Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

 

Cheers, Pete

[+Sioneva]

*wince* Dump any cache that has fewer then 20 visitors, and you weed out the caches that are really worth going for, the tough hiking 'somewhere out there' caches in places few people ever tread. Heck, even some of mine don't get more than a few visits a year, and they are pretty close to civilization!

 

It'd be a good way to encourage PnG. Which really doesn't need it.

[+humboldt flier]

Can't completely buy into dumping caches with fewer than 20 visits per year.

 

Perhaps that might fly for caches in semi rural or urban environments.

 

In my region there are some absolutely amazing hikes and vistas to be had, their remoteness and or terrain complexities result in a very few number of visits per year. The very obvious inverse relationship between visits and the duration of hike coupled with terrain complexities needs to be factored into the equation.

 

To your comment regarding closer than 528 feet ... given the precision of to-days GPS'r units there might be some merit to your suggestion.

[+narcissa]

What about dumping any cache with less than 20 visitors within a year?

 

This is a horrible idea. Some of the best caches I've found have been hidden in remote areas where they attract very few visitors.

 

You haven't really explained how "too many caches" is posing a problem that requires solving, so the rest of your post doesn't make much sense.

 

Geocaching.com provides several ways that you can filter out caches if you don't want to find them. Don't like micros? Filter them out.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Can't completely buy into dumping caches with fewer than 20 visits per year.

 

Perhaps that might fly for caches in semi rural or urban environments.

 

That could effectively eliminate all of the active caches in many countries.

[+The VanDucks]

Since we own 19 caches, and I'm very fond of all of them, I'd hate to lose them if there were rules like this!

 

However, I do sympathize with the OP; there are a lot of urban areas around where we live (in northern Virginia, USA), that are approaching cache saturation. I read that in some of the state parks in Pennsylvania, USA, there is a rule that caches approved by the state to be placed will be automatically archived in 3 years. This would seem to be a fair way of opening up areas for new caches and would not make any value judgments about which cache is more worthy than another.

 

It would be a very controversial rule for Groundspeak to make; but perhaps there will have to be some sort of regulation about cache longevity, or eventually no new cachers will have any chance of placing their own caches, and that would be a shame!

[+Markwell]

I'd go the other way and say the caches that get more than 100 visits a year should be dumped. They're plowing down the terrain and probably have no good swag in them at this point. The log book is likely full and it's too easy to find.

 

But I don't think any caches should be dumped just because of the finds or lack thereof.

 

The saturation isn't really an issue as long as simple and thoughtless caches aren't blocking the way for someone to put another cache in a location that would be a "better" cache. But who's to say what's better.

 

Once you make the determination that you don't have to find all of the caches placed, life becomes much more enjoyable.

[+narcissa]

Once you make the determination that you don't have to find all of the caches placed, life becomes much more enjoyable.

 

+1

[+Chokecherry]

Oh my goodness. We have caches all over here that get less than 20 visitors a year because of how far out of the way they are (not even necessarily hiking wise). I would hate to see them all shut down.

[+briansnat]

What about dumping any cache with less than 20 visitors within a year?

 

That would eliminate most of my best caches.

[+t4e]

 

What about dumping any cache with less than 20 visitors within a year?

 

we just placed two caches on an island that requires a canoe/boat to get there, i do not anticipate a great number of visitors in a year

 

What about limiting the number of caches that an individual can place? (leaving some spaces for new cachers)

 

i really don't like the idea of being restrained on how many i can place

 

we placed most of our caches in areas that have been cacheless for years, and they are really pretty spots too, the veterans around here never placed any there

 

to me is first come first served, if you make an effort you will find interesting cacheless places

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

I'd go the other way and say the caches that get more than 100 visits a year should be dumped. They're plowing down the terrain and probably have no good swag in them at this point. The log book is likely full and it's too easy to find.

 

But I don't think any caches should be dumped just because of the finds or lack thereof.

 

The saturation isn't really an issue as long as simple and thoughtless caches aren't blocking the way for someone to put another cache in a location that would be a "better" cache. But who's to say what's better.

 

Once you make the determination that you don't have to find all of the caches placed, life becomes much more enjoyable.

 

You've been reading my mind.

[Ayeaka]

Mind, I am a newbie... so my suggestions might be bupkus.

 

Perhaps a limit on how many caches could be placed, per person, in a certain time frame? It would at least slow the cache saturation by single users, and allow for other users to place caches in areas where one person would otherwise have a complete monopoly of...micros.

 

Different users have different hiding methods, too. Once you get familiar with a certain user's tastes in an area, you can usually locate most of their hides pretty quickly--so it's always nice to encourage more people to place caches, personally.

 

I agree that removing caches with less than a certain number of users is a bad idea... Fewer finds usually indicates a cache that's harder to find, or harder to get to, to me, and that just means it'll be more rewarding when I do get to sign the log.

 

[Edit]

I see Spiky beat me to it.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Ayeaka

[+SwineFlew]

What about dumping any cache with less than 20 visitors within a year?

 

Thats a really really really bad idea.

 

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps a limit on how many caches could be placed, per person, in a certain time frame? It would at least slow the cache saturation by single users, and allow for other users to place caches in areas where one person would otherwise have a complete monopoly of...micros.

 

Or people could, you know, find room for a cache somewhere else and stop being bitter that someone else beat them to the good spots.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

An excellent idea!

[Ayeaka]

Perhaps a limit on how many caches could be placed, per person, in a certain time frame? It would at least slow the cache saturation by single users, and allow for other users to place caches in areas where one person would otherwise have a complete monopoly of...micros.

 

Or people could, you know, find room for a cache somewhere else and stop being bitter that someone else beat them to the good spots.

 

Not being bitter. I'm talking about situations where literally every cache in a good few miles will be owned by the same person. We're talking full saturation ever .1 miles. Haven't run into that here, but I've had friends complain about it, and I've seen complaints on the forums.

[+Mosaic55]

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

An excellent idea!

 

Got my vote too.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If cache saturation becomes a serious issue I think the solution is for the community to be more active about cache maintenance.

[+Q10]

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache(s) until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

 

Support, support - a brilliant idear. We have some persons in my country (unfortunately in my area), that love to create events. Here they place quite a few new caches, that after the event are left on their own. Then they create a new event...

Edited June 27, 2010 by Q10

[+brslk]

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

An excellent idea!

 

I agree with that. Certain people might not. Certain people who have had caches archived because they were ill placed and didn't respond to reviewers notes.

 

Responding to reviewers is hard. Let's go shopping!

 

Or

 

Maintaining a cache is hard. Let's go shopping!

 

He was right... it is still funny....

Edited June 27, 2010 by brslk

[+SixDogTeam]

no more new rules.

[+Bear and Ragged]

snipped...

To your comment regarding closer than 528 feet ... given the precision of to-days GPS'r units there might be some merit to your suggestion.

 

Locally, to me, given that 'more than a few' new caches have been set by phone users, and the co-ords have been wrong -far enough wrong that a Reviewer has to change them- maybe the limit needs to be increased!

[+BulldogBlitz]

What about dumping any cache with less than 20 visitors within a year?

 

Thats a really really really bad idea.

 

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

 

 

prevent them from finding them too... if a NM flag goes up on one of their hides, the website can lock them out of searching out new (to them) caches...and logging current finds until they answer the bell.

 

...and after a week of no-action, a auto-post can be made in the forums:

 

"hello fellow cachers, i'm a derilect cache owner. i'm spoiling everyone's fun."

[+JL_HSTRE]

I wish there is a way to keep CO from placing new cache(s) until they repaired their "needs maintenance" caches that are out there.

 

This problem is made worse by most CO's not seeming to understand that if their cache is logged Needs Maintenance after said maintenance is performed they themselves need to make a Maintenance Performed log.

 

Some COs also seem to maintain some caches better than others. One local cache I found and wrote a second Note log in addition to my Find log noting that construction had started close to the cache and the CO would probably want to remove the cache as a result. They removed it within about 24 hours. Yet they have another cache that has received several NM logs because it is an ammo can with the entire bottom rusted out (!) but has yet to replace the cache container or remove it.

Edited June 27, 2010 by joshism