GeoCache Density

[+Mike & Jess]

I had ran a density report using GSAK of my local area (Sudbury Ontario) and found that we had a couple areas that had 5-8 caches per sq km. Most are 2 or 1 cache per sq km.

 

I had posted a comment about this low density to a group of local geocachers, and someone asked about what would be considered saturated, and what would be optimal?

 

What do you guys think?

I would have to guess that we are looking at ~20sq km of highly populated city, and the rest is bush.

[+chris-mouse]

I had ran a density report using GSAK of my local area (Sudbury Ontario) and found that we had a couple areas that had 5-8 caches per sq km. Most are 2 or 1 cache per sq km.

 

I had posted a comment about this low density to a group of local geocachers, and someone asked about what would be considered saturated, and what would be optimal?

 

What do you guys think?

I would have to guess that we are looking at ~20sq km of highly populated city, and the rest is bush.

 

That depends on what kind of caches you want to have. You could put a film can under every other lamp post throughout the city, but is it worth it? I can tell you right now, I'd be bored silly before I got the first street done.

 

Rather than looking at the number of caches per square kilometer, look at the number of interesting places, and how many of those already have geocaches.

 

I like to look at it this way. Would the cache you're about to place be of interest to someone from out of town for any reason than 'just another smiley?' If the answer is no, that's probably one cache beyond the optimal for that area.

[+TrimblesTrek]

 

That depends on what kind of caches you want to have. You could put a film can under every other lamp post throughout the city, but is it worth it? I can tell you right now, I'd be bored silly before I got the first street done.

 

Rather than looking at the number of caches per square kilometer, look at the number of interesting places, and how many of those already have geocaches.

 

I like to look at it this way. Would the cache you're about to place be of interest to someone from out of town for any reason than 'just another smiley?' If the answer is no, that's probably one cache beyond the optimal for that area.

 

Sadly, that seems to be exactly what a lot of people are looking for. Drive-up, hike 2 metres, lift the skirt. Repeat. Makes me nauseous. Can't understand why anybody who cares a whit for real geocaching would ever hide one of these lame things.

[+Bullfrog Eh-Team]

We just looked out the window, and estimate that we have about 6 geocaches in our single square km. of 'bush' , and then the 'rest is bush'. In the nearby Geocaching Capital of Canada <geocachingcapitalofcanada.com> there are likely the same stats - i.e. perhaps 6 geocaches in their one square km., centred on the 'Crossroads'; and then perhaps another one in each square km. beyond that.

We sort of figger - that's 'about optimal' - jest the way we like it. But Trim Queen Flora adds a few more whenever the chores are done, jest to keep the Peterborough crews, the Various Barrie COGgers, and Shelley's Crew intrigued.

 

We don't have ANY skirt lifters here (cause we don' have big boxes) only decent bush walks to spectacular scenery, and of course the 'Crossroads' still serves fantastic 'Geoburgers'. Lotsa city folk cache in cottage country, and the Black Flies luv the fresh meat!

[+Westacular]

I like to look at it this way. Would the cache you're about to place be of interest to someone from out of town for any reason than 'just another smiley?' If the answer is no, that's probably one cache beyond the optimal for that area.

 

Sadly, that seems to be exactly what a lot of people are looking for. Drive-up, hike 2 metres, lift the skirt. Repeat. Makes me nauseous. Can't understand why anybody who cares a whit for real geocaching would ever hide one of these lame things.

 

When you're just starting out, there's a certain rush that comes with the novelty of finding something hidden in a public space like that. That novelty wears off at different rates for different people... and people have similarly differing standards for the amount of originality that should go into a hide.

 

Lamp posts offer a sort of low-hanging, urban fruit that can help get newbies started. They're not my preference, either, and we could probably do with less of them, but at the same time I'm hesitant about calling any one interpretation of the game as "real geocaching".

[+Mike & Jess]

The problem we are running into here is most of us are hitting a wall around the 150-175 mark. With the amount of bush we have here, it is pretty safe to say more then half are 10+ minute walk from where you park.

In the report I ran, 3 areas had 6-8 caches per km, and the rest where 2 caches and 1 per km, making geocaching more of a driving excercise then a hiking one.

[+northernpenguin]

The problem we are running into here is most of us are hitting a wall around the 150-175 mark. With the amount of bush we have here, it is pretty safe to say more then half are 10+ minute walk from where you park.

In the report I ran, 3 areas had 6-8 caches per km, and the rest where 2 caches and 1 per km, making geocaching more of a driving excercise then a hiking one.

 

Use your premium membership to filter caches to ones that have the "Takes less than one hour" set to no, or a terrain above 2.5 and that will generally take out the urban micros. I say generally because these are voluntary guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

 

I just finished a week of caching from Grey to Sudbury to Bancroft. Found 14 caches. Drove past several thousand. Caches were researched in advance, either looking at high Terrain marks or by talking to other geocachers about their favourites.

 

Different people play the game different ways. I tend to use the LPC type caches to fill in a square for a cache-a-day challenge, and I tend to put research into the 'adventure caches' when looking for a geocache outing. Life gets a lot easier when you give up on being a radius slave, and remember this isn't Pokemon.... you don't have to find them all, you just have to find the ones you want to.

[+Juicepig]

...

In the report I ran, 3 areas had 6-8 caches per km, and the rest where 2 caches and 1 per km, making geocaching more of a driving excercise then a hiking one.

 

Change your "reporting" to filter out anything below 3 stars of terrain.

 

You cannot change the way everyone else plays or places caches, but you can be selective about which ones you decide to visit.

 

Challenge yourself to be picky

Challenge your friends to hide caches they will dare you to retrieve

[+Knight2000]

Maybe my math is wrong. Need someone to double check.

 

194 per KM?

[+Westacular]

Maybe my math is wrong. Need someone to double check.

 

194 per KM?

Unless you're looking at a spot with an insanely high cluster of virtuals and mysteries, your math has to be wrong -- the 161 m limit puts a cap of 36 per square kilometer on cache density. And even that is quite contrived, depending on a precise grid spacing between all of the caches.

 

If you assume that caches are placed randomly (and that the entire area is viable for cache placements) then the probable limit is 25-28 per square kilometer. Of course, normally the entire area isn't viable, so the practical limit on density is somewhat less than that.

[+Knight2000]

Maybe my math is wrong. Need someone to double check.

 

194 per KM?

Unless you're looking at a spot with an insanely high cluster of virtuals and mysteries, your math has to be wrong -- the 161 m limit puts a cap of 36 per square kilometer on cache density. And even that is quite contrived, depending on a precise grid spacing between all of the caches.

 

If you assume that caches are placed randomly (and that the entire area is viable for cache placements) then the probable limit is 25-28 per square kilometer. Of course, normally the entire area isn't viable, so the practical limit on density is somewhat less than that.

Duh. Your right about the math. I think it would be closer to 50 though.

[+Mike & Jess]

I think 3-4 caches per sq km within city limits would be nice. With the amount of bush we have here, it would still mean a 45min to 1 hour hike (depending on terrain) with the family.

I do enjoy the harder, hike in caches, but these are not that good when I bring my friend's girls with me. My little guy doesn't mind, but the girls get tire.

[+Juicepig]

If you assume that caches are placed randomly (and that the entire area is viable for cache placements) then the probable limit is 25-28 per square kilometer. Of course, normally the entire area isn't viable, so the practical limit on density is somewhat less than that.

 

hmm, sounds like a challenge..

[+Knight2000]

If you assume that caches are placed randomly (and that the entire area is viable for cache placements) then the probable limit is 25-28 per square kilometer. Of course, normally the entire area isn't viable, so the practical limit on density is somewhat less than that.

 

hmm, sounds like a challenge..

That would be a challenge to take a wooded area and pack one right on top of another. Pick the coords ahead of time and put the caches at the coords. It would be a power forest.

[+Westacular]

If you assume that caches are placed randomly (and that the entire area is viable for cache placements) then the probable limit is 25-28 per square kilometer. Of course, normally the entire area isn't viable, so the practical limit on density is somewhat less than that.

 

hmm, sounds like a challenge..

 

Which part? Meeting that number, or exceeding it?

 

I was curious and actually ran some quick simulations that revealed 25-28 as the distribution -- I remembered a bit of code I have sitting around that, although written for another purpose, works well to provide a quick and dirty answer to this question. It's basically just dropping circles of a given radius onto random-but-allowable spots a plane until there isn't space for any more. On a 1000-by-1000 m grid, where the centre of each circle must be at least 160 m from any other, that no-more-space limit was consistently reached at between 25 and 28 circles. If the locations are planned/coordinated in advance, you could squeeze a few more in.

 

As to an entire square kilometer being viable for hiding spots, I was imagining an urban area (ie, where cache density is actually an issue), where buildings and private property could lead to certain "holes" in the cache layout that would be unfillable. If you had a 1x1 km block of unrestricted, public-use forest, then filling it to the cache-radius capacity might not be so difficult.

[+Mike & Jess]

The funny thing with this areas is that I have an unrestricted area less then a 5 minute walk from my house. If someone was willing to sponsor or spot me the materials, I would go for it.

 

In case you are wondering, it is 10 minute walk to my office, which is right downtown.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Geocache density is hard to say. All I care is that the cache is fun. I do appreciate that some people are not avid hikers and that are limited by various personal factors. Not my place to deny them their version of fun.

 

Maybe it's because I started long ago but I don't buy the "low lying fruit" theory. All I know is that a cache location and hide style should reflect the person creating the listing.

 

If you want a number, it would be "The most that provides a unique and interesting experience."

 

BQ

[+Mike & Jess]

(this is Jess now, not Mike)

 

Our son is 1 and our friend's twins are 3. The girls love hunting for treasure, so when we take them we like to find caches filled with swag, no micros. We call micros adult treasures and they really don't like them.

 

To spend the day caching with the kids we can't do the harder hikes, well, we can do some but they get tired and complain because they want to find more treasures. It would be nice to be able to do 3 or 4 caches without having to pack up all the kids into the van and drive somewhere else. There is enough bush here that many different areas could be more populated. It's not about the numbers as in smilies, but in the numbers for the kids. Imagine you are 3. You are going treasure hunting and you only find one treasure, then you have to get back in the car, drive somewhere else, maybe have lunch or a nap, and then you can find another treasure. Going swiming or playing in my sandbox is starting to look more fun, lol.

 

The most fun I've had geocaching was at the Spring Fling. We spent the entire day hiking around the conservation area and found 8 caches. Cohen was happy in his back pack. We didn't have to keep putting him in and out of the car. He even had a great little nap in there. If we go out caching and we have to keep getting in the car, he will fall asleep just as we get to a cache, then we are stuck waiting for him to wake up or we wake him up and he doesn't get a good nap and is cranky all day.

 

Our original question was not about filling up an area with micros or quick grabs. It was about adding to the existing quality caches to make the game more fun for everyone. We know how many are allowed, but how many do you think is actually too many. Do you say, go for it, if it fits the guidelines it's all good? or do you think there is a smaller amount that is too many?

 

Personally I don't have an opinion on the cache density as far as numbers and statistics go. I just want to go out caching and enjoy the day without having to use half a tank of gas or more. I'd also like to see more of the different types of caches in our area.

[+Bullfrog Eh-Team]

(this is Jess now, not Mike)

Personally I don't have an opinion on the cache density as far as numbers and statistics go. I just want to go out caching and enjoy the day without having to use half a tank of gas or more. I'd also like to see more of the different types of caches in our area.

 

Seems like this is a time for a 'Reality Check!'

 

Sounds like you DO have an opinion for the 'optimal cache density (with 'differing types of caches') for enjoying the day without having to use a tank of gas - 'in your area'.

 

We all face the prospect of completing most of the originally selected caches within a reasonable range from our own abode. At that point, we must alter our own parameters, perhaps to -

1. Expand our area of operation, or

2. Expand our choice of types of caches, or

3. Expand our selection of mode of transportation (so as to comsume less fuel ?), or perhaps

4. Seek others who will accommodate our own personal parameters in geocaching, by creating more acceptable caches for us, in our area.

 

Ourselves ? - we elected to expand our area of operation, and are now closing in on our own personal goal of caching in all 52 jurisdictions of Ontario. We still believe our monthly gas bill is less than a golf/curling club membership ! I guess it's all in how you chose to enjoy your own leisure.

 

Two happy old farts in the Algonquin Highlands of Ontario.

[+Mike & Jess]

Seems like this is a time for a 'Reality Check!'

 

Sounds like you DO have an opinion for the 'optimal cache density (with 'differing types of caches') for enjoying the day without having to use a tank of gas - 'in your area'.

 

We all face the prospect of completing most of the originally selected caches within a reasonable range from our own abode. At that point, we must alter our own parameters, perhaps to -

1. Expand our area of operation, or

2. Expand our choice of types of caches, or

3. Expand our selection of mode of transportation (so as to comsume less fuel ?), or perhaps

4. Seek others who will accommodate our own personal parameters in geocaching, by creating more acceptable caches for us, in our area.

 

Ourselves ? - we elected to expand our area of operation, and are now closing in on our own personal goal of caching in all 52 jurisdictions of Ontario. We still believe our monthly gas bill is less than a golf/curling club membership ! I guess it's all in how you chose to enjoy your own leisure.

 

Two happy old farts in the Algonquin Highlands of Ontario.

 

Just for entertainment value, let’s go through your points here. The battery limits are 3 kids (ages 1 and 2 are 3yrs old) and caching in Sudbury.

 

1. Outside a 30km radius of downtown is bush (density ~1 cache per 10km and dropping further you go out)

North Bay is the next closest town/city with a density greater then 1 cache per #kms.

 

2. In a 30km radius (from downtown) we have,

131 traditional (11 are mine, found 116)

17 multi (found 2)

7 mystery caches (one is mine)

1 Earth Cache

 

3. 3 car seats do not fit in a clown car. The 07 Grand Caravan (3.3l engine) gets ~20-30mpg x $1.12 per litter. Nearest cache not found yet is GC1FWDB (15km from home). You’re welcome to try taking the kids on that one. I'll even lend you my kayak (only have the one though).

 

4. See original post. A few of us are looking to add more caches within the city. I was asking for opinions on how many would be considered too many in an area because we do want to increase the count, but not create a power trail.

[+Mike & Jess]

If you assume that caches are placed randomly (and that the entire area is viable for cache placements) then the probable limit is 25-28 per square kilometer. Of course, normally the entire area isn't viable, so the practical limit on density is somewhat less than that.

 

hmm, sounds like a challenge..

 

I'd take on a chanllenge like this, but would feel guilty after the fact.

 

Kind of like eating one of those big Hursheys Chocolate bars in one sitting. Would be fun doing it, but after the fact, probably not so much fun.

 

I'm typing this while I am looking over at a shelf full of ready to place caches.

[+northernpenguin]

Head on over to Ottawa and if you spend each day finding 25 caches, you'll be 69 days before you clear out the county.

[+Mike & Jess]

Head on over to Ottawa and if you spend each day finding 25 caches, you'll be 69 days before you clear out the county.

 

I noticed there was a lot there.

There was a spot along the Ontario/Quebec border that had a density of ~40 caches per km. This of course was mystery caches, earth caches, etc.

 

I have a PQ setup for Ottawa, so the next time I go east the visit the inlaws, I may just make an over night stay in Ottawa to get some caches.

[+Mike & Jess]

 

Ourselves ? - we elected to expand our area of operation, and are now closing in on our own personal goal of caching in all 52 jurisdictions of Ontario. We still believe our monthly gas bill is less than a golf/curling club membership ! I guess it's all in how you chose to enjoy your own leisure.

 

Two happy old farts in the Algonquin Highlands of Ontario.

 

(Jess Again)

 

That a great way to look at! I'm glad your able to do that. Good luck reaching your goal. Us? A golf/curling club membership is out of our budget, so therefore the extra gas is too. We had to give up much of the extras in our life when I chose to be a stay at home mom.

 

Sorry if I managed to offend you. I was just trying to explain why we were asking the question in the first place. I guess next time I will just read and keep my mouth shut!

Edited July 7, 2010 by Mike & Jess

[+northernpenguin]

Optimal cache density.

 

Well, I'm rather happy with the 162M/528ft rule to prevent overpopulation of caches in a given area - but that guideline is meant to avoid confusion where a cacher finds one cache while aiming to find a completely different cache.

 

I've found most places will eventually settle on a balance that is determined by terrain, the # of local cachers, the # of cachers likely to visit a place, and the # of muggles. I'd say the factor with the most impact is the local cacher population though.

 

A forest in North Bay is more likely to support a higher number of caches due to the reduced muggling factor, but at the same time there are far less cachers there available to place caches. Places like Toronto and Ottawa have a far, far higher cache density mainly due to the numbers of people in these places. Even when the caches get constantly muggled, the sheer number of cachers in the area mean that when one cacher gives up a spot in frustration, someone else moves in to use it very quickly.

 

Toronto has more paved paths and local parks which also increases the 'kid friendly' cache count significantly. There's quite a few of us down here that wish we had more access to places like that 15km kayak cache. You can easily travel 30km from downtown Toronto without encountering a forest nevermind true wilderness. Rouge Park notwithstanding.

 

The optimal cache density to me is whatever the local caching community is willing to put out, and maintain. Unfortunately this isn't something that can be decided - it is what it is.

[+Mike & Jess]

northernpenguin,

Sudbury is very similar to North Bay in many ways. As you describe it, it could support hundreds, even thousands more maintained quality caches.

 

I opened up the discussion of cache density at our last ice-cream meeting. Highlighted was areas that have a decent density (6-9 per sq km) and areas that have a great potential for a couple more caches.

As a group, we are looking to increase the local quality cache count, in order to maintain or increase local interest in this hobby/sport.

 

On a side note from your comment:

A group of us from the last ice-cream meeting are looking to do a group multi-cache find. It'll be a canoe/kayak trip sometime in September. The target cache is GC27PV2 (currently disabled due to bridge construction in the area). You're more then welcome to come out and join us once the date is selected.

[+CacheDrone]

Sine I haven't stirred the pot in a few weeks Let's start with the official stuff. I've made the text bold in places

 

Cache Saturation

 

Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag with the next set of coordinates or a container. Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

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

 

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. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

 

All too often I see comments on caches that are under the (again) minimum 528ft/162m about this terrain feature or that building or how the trails flow or whoever built whatever things and put something near it or around it... and that is why it says to "seek out new areas". When I review I consider every physical item as if it is a magnetic disk. When two disks get too close together, they stick. (I would use a landmine analogy but .. oh wait, I just did ). In general I don't worry too much about 515ft unless the area looks like a shotgun shot at the map. But by the same token, it is best to make the effort to exceed the minimum. Isn't that how most of us would like to be thought of, as one that does more than the bare minimum?

 

So it isn't about cachers getting confused or accidentally finding the wrong cache because many people find a "final location" while walking to a farther cache just by seeing a good spot to hide another cache. The saturation guideline is about keeping things separated.

 

CD

[+Mike & Jess]

CD,

I'll use a #2 shell when placing my shotgun caches

[+muddy4444]

(this is Jess now, not Mike)

 

Our son is 1 and our friend's twins are 3. The girls love hunting for treasure, so when we take them we like to find caches filled with swag, no micros. We call micros adult treasures and they really don't like them.

 

To spend the day caching with the kids we can't do the harder hikes, well, we can do some but they get tired and complain because they want to find more treasures. It would be nice to be able to do 3 or 4 caches without having to pack up all the kids into the van and drive somewhere else.

 

The most fun I've had geocaching was at the Spring Fling. We spent the entire day hiking around the conservation area and found 8 caches. Cohen was happy in his back pack. We didn't have to keep putting him in and out of the car. He even had a great little nap in there. If we go out caching and we have to keep getting in the car, he will fall asleep just as we get to a cache, then we are stuck waiting for him to wake up or we wake him up and he doesn't get a good nap and is cranky all day.

 

Hi Jess & Mike - I couldn't agree more. I cache with my daughter, who is 5, and we try to find places that do have a few in one location (e.g., park car, hike in), so we get the thrill of the hunt. One of my fav's so far has been a trail near Guelph (see GC245GQ). There are 9 caches in the span of a 5 KM trail, and we got 5 the first day, before she tired. She is looking forward to going back to hike in to the end of the trail to find the rest.

 

I'm not asking for saturation in urban centres or uninteresting micros, but if you have a fairly large tract of land (park, trail, etc), I'd like to see 3-4 caches spread out (maybe a multi, maybe a themed series to give us a guided tour of the interesting features) so a family can park & hike. That's one of the reasons I like events too - lots of caches are hidden just for that day.

 

Lori