Can two ECs be within 200 feet?

[+honeybee77]

I am in the beginning stages of developing two seperate but mostly unrelated earthcaches with the ideal location for both being within 200 feet of each other. Is this allowed? If you'd like to know more, see below.

 

First, the location is a unique spot located off the interstate in North Dakota. There is an informational display there with facts about wind development in ND and also a single modern wind turbine. This spot also happens to be located on a distinctive glacial end moraine.

 

Originally, I started out to develop an EC about the end moraine. Scoping out the site, I thought it may also be interesting to do another EC about why it's so windy in North Dakota (part of which is the lack of terrain roughness and locally the elevated position of this particular spot).

 

The site has minimal amenities, basically just a parking lot with the signage, surrounded by farm land. I would place the wind EC by the sign and the end moraine EC at the opposite edge of the parking lot.

 

Yes, it is possible to relocate the Wind EC to one of many wind developments in ND, but not all have informational displays or are on a well-traveled path.

 

Of course this is also contingent on land owner permission and approval. Just wondering if it's even allowed or I shouldn't waste my time? Thank you!

Edited August 26, 2010 by honeybee77

[+Lostby7]

ECs may be within mere feet of each other provided they explore distinctly different topics...

[+Touchstone]

ECs may be within mere feet of each other provided they explore distinctly different topics...

 

That's my understanding as well, but is their some reason you would not want to combine them into a singl Listing....besides the usual desire just to collect icons? Just bunching up a series of EC's sounds a bit too much like a Power Trail. That would be kind of a sad development for EC's IMO.

[+honeybee77]

Well, my intent was not to do a "power trail" of ECs. I'm not a fan of that either. My reason for making two is that they are two quite different topics. I don't think they would be combined well.

[+cincol]

I am wondering how "geological" your wind EC is going to be. My gut feel tells me that you are going to have an uphill battle to get that one approved.

 

My 2c worth.

[+geodarts]

I am wondering how "geological" your wind EC is going to be. My gut feel tells me that you are going to have an uphill battle to get that one approved.

 

My 2c worth.

 

I know of two wind power earth caches. Apparently, there was just enough information about how geology contributed to the wind patterns so they were good to go. Like everything else, the standard disclaimer is that "your results might vary."

 

They are Off the Grid and Solano Breezes if the OP wants to review them. In fact, the latter shows how two earthcaches and a traditional can coexist.

Edited August 26, 2010 by mulvaney

[+honeybee77]

Thanks for the examples! It's good to know that two nearby ECs have been placed. Of course, I know that doesn't mean mine will necessarily be approved, but here's hoping!

 

Yes, I realize wind is not a geologic feature per se, but I am going to give it a go. I had a similar thought of the examples mulvaney gave relating wind potential to landscape features (ah, the windy plains!). The ND Geological Survey did a short "geology note" on this which gave me some good ideas. We will see...

 

Thanks all!

[+narcissa]

As long as they are different features, it's allowed. We have an example of this here in Ottawa where there are two Earthcaches at the same site. The first Earthcache is the equivalent of a skirtlifter that never should have been published, but the second one is explores a very different aspect of the same site.

[+Arby Gee]

Personally, I think if they're two different topics, they SHOULD be two different Earthcaches. Good luck with them!

[+DragonflyTotem]

I do seem to recall a prior thread somewhere that discussed that the only minimum distance requirements on an EC being related to having a minimum separation of GZs for mapping purposes (so the sites can be distinguished).

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Worthiness of an EC is like beauty....................it's in the eye of the beholder! With that little editorial comment finished, the simple answer to your question is YES! Just don't show two rock outcrops within a few feet of each other, especially if they are the same kind of rock! Make sure they (the ECs) are different i.e. hydrological versus igneous, etc., etc.

There's nothing more fun that taking a nice hike to find two or three ECs, all within a few feet! One of our local earthcaching icons has three ECs within 100 yards. All are really nice.

[+dfx]

I do seem to recall a prior thread somewhere that discussed that the only minimum distance requirements on an EC being related to having a minimum separation of GZs for mapping purposes (so the sites can be distinguished).

you mean this

[+narcissa]

Personally, I think if they're two different topics, they SHOULD be two different Earthcaches. Good luck with them!

 

Sometimes, different features that share a cause (i.e. volcanic, glaciation) can be tied together into a single Earthcache quite nicely. But I'm a fan of multi-caches.

[+DragonflyTotem]

I do seem to recall a prior thread somewhere that discussed that the only minimum distance requirements on an EC being related to having a minimum separation of GZs for mapping purposes (so the sites can be distinguished).

you mean this

 

Think that was one that I'd seen....but seem to recall another that was more specific about spelling out the GPS separation. Have searched for it already but you know how that is with forum searching.

[+Chokecherry]

I just drove by that wind turbine the other week when on vacation. Isn't that turbine essentially advertising for the company that made it or the power company? I recall it being a giant advertisement in the middle of nowhere (which is why I noticed it).

 

I would probably ignore the turbine completely and do the other earth cache you have in mind but that's just me after seeing the turbine.

[+honeybee77]

I just drove by that wind turbine the other week when on vacation. Isn't that turbine essentially advertising for the company that made it or the power company? I recall it being a giant advertisement in the middle of nowhere (which is why I noticed it).

 

I would probably ignore the turbine completely and do the other earth cache you have in mind but that's just me after seeing the turbine.

 

Hi Chokecherry. Yep, it's a functioning "demonstration" turbine that the energy company put up. The big sign you see from the interstate has the company name. However, if you drive off the interstate out to the site, there is another sign with information about the turbine and wind energy development. Of course, it's put up by the energy company, but what else can one expect? Anyway, I hope the Wind EC is interesting enough that a person would want to do it too. I'm mean, my EC isn't going to be advertising for the energy company so what would it matter if they put a sign there? I don't intend to just have the cacher only read information off the sign if that's what you're worried about. IMHO, it's actually quite an experience stading directly under the ginormous turbine. A little freaky actually.

 

Anyway, to each his/her own.

[+Lostby7]

Getting wind powered features published is tricky...it is possible but normally you will need to base the listing on the geology and then "casually mention" that there are some wind turbines here too....

[+Touchstone]

Getting wind powered features published is tricky...it is possible but normally you will need to base the listing on the geology and then "casually mention" that there are some wind turbines here too....

 

I generally agree with this, although I think that one or two questions regarding the turbines as part of verifying the visit in the Logging Requirements would be within the spirit of the Guidelines. This is assuming, of course, that there are sufficient questions ( more qualitatively speaking ) that would address the Geologic/Earth Science Lesson requirement as well.

 

Best of luck. Sounds like an interesting location

Edited August 27, 2010 by Touchstone

[+GEO WALKER]

I just drove by that wind turbine the other week when on vacation. Isn't that turbine essentially advertising for the company that made it or the power company? I recall it being a giant advertisement in the middle of nowhere (which is why I noticed it).

 

I would probably ignore the turbine completely and do the other earth cache you have in mind but that's just me after seeing the turbine.

 

As a point of reference... GC1EXJK

[+Chokecherry]

The difference between the wind farm and the turbine is that it's not a wind farm. It's one advertising turbine just off the interstate. While you could glean the same information from it that you would that windfarm cache I think by far the more interesting aspect of that particular spot would be the other option that was presented with some kind of foot note about the turbine.

[+belair56]

The difference between a wind farm and a turbine is the amount of dead birds under it.

[tubeex1995]

I would like to hide an earthcache 5 feet from a physical cache. Would this be ok by any chance?

[+Lostby7]

I would like to hide an earthcache 5 feet from a physical cache. Would this be ok by any chance?

While there is no official minimum distance for an EC to be from a traditional, the EarthCache folks will not allow an EC and a traditional cache to share the same coords. To be safe I'd recommend offsetting the coords by at least 50 feet. If the feature is pronounced enough that should not be a problem.

[Narnian Rockhound]

As long as they are different features, it's allowed. We have an example of this here in Ottawa where there are two Earthcaches at the same site. The first Earthcache is the equivalent of a skirtlifter that never should have been published, but the second one is explores a very different aspect of the same site.

 

ok, um... what's a "skirtlifter"?

[+geobswescout]

I am in the beginning stages of developing two seperate but mostly unrelated earthcaches with the ideal location for both being within 200 feet of each other. Is this allowed?

 

That should not be a problem I think.

Have a look at these two EC's: GC1A66T and GC1A66Q.

 

Good luck and succes with your EC's

[+geodarts]

As long as they are different features, it's allowed. We have an example of this here in Ottawa where there are two Earthcaches at the same site. The first Earthcache is the equivalent of a skirtlifter that never should have been published, but the second one is explores a very different aspect of the same site.

 

ok, um... what's a "skirtlifter"?

 

A traditional hide in the skirt of a lamp post. An easy park and grab. Or even just a grab. The equivalent earthcache would require no thought or no time.