Should cache generations be created?

[+Olewaif]

I live on an Island that two years back had under 500 caches and now has nearing 2000 caches. A time is coming when it will become next to impossible to place new caches here due to proximity rules. This is also a concern in a lot of other places as well. In addition many early caches are gone/ decrepit/ never or seldom ever visited etc. I wonder if it would be possible/ desirable to do the following ( or something like it ) :

1 )Set an end date for what would be called Generation One caches... this does NOT mean archiving them just placing them in one distinct pool of caches out there say Dec 31/ 2010. All caches placed to that date would be designated Generation One Caches. ( Gen1). No new Gen1 caches would exist placed after the end date but all would remain active.

2) Create a new Generation Two Cache (Gen2 ) pool which would exist as entirely separate entity from Gen1, such that Gen2 cache placement would only relate to other Gen2 caches. This would allow active cachers the opportunity to place more caches, find more caches and renew the sport in their local areas.

I have no idea what technical aspects are involved here. I suspect that there would be some issues but I really can't see those as being insurmountable. The way it is now , unless either this or some sort of compulsory archiving of older caches to free up space is instituted, then geocaching has a built-in end date as an activity, that being when all reasonably available cache areas are clogged and active cachers have no wasty way to find new caches. As it is. cachers are already being forced to travel farthur and farthur afield to get new caches hidded and/ior found. I welcome discussion of this idea because frankly we will HAVE to do something down the road and doing it sooner rather than later is preferable so as to retain as many now-increasingly-frustrated but keen geocachers as possible.

[+The Jester]

The problem I see with this idea is the seperation guideline. You would have Gen1 and Gen2 caches closer than 0.1 miles. One of the first reasons for this guideline was so people wouldn't find the wrong cache when two are close together. Also land managers may not want their land 'carpeted' with caches.

[+Walts Hunting]

So having caches only a few feet apart is ok with you. I don't think you are going to find much sympathy for that. One thing that will happen is all the Gen 1 owners will place a container (or maybe just a second log) and call them Gen 2.

 

Since you live on an island the caching community should be relatively close together. Why not propose to the group and see if members would be willing to archive their caches.

[+NanCycle]

In addition many early caches are gone/ decrepit

 

Well, how about get these archived first?

[+Ecylram]

In addition many early caches are gone/ decrepit

 

Well, how about get these archived first?

That's what is going to happen. In areas where the caches get built out, cachers will be quicker to post NA's on abandoned caches.

[+narcissa]

The proximity guideline is in place, in part, to prevent cache containers from being mistaken for one another. This is a terrible idea.

 

If you're dying for new caches to find, travel. If you want to hide caches, set your notifications to tell you when a cache gets archived and nab the spot.

[+dbrierley]

As mentioned earlier, post "needs archived" notes on caches that fall into disrepair without maintenance. For other caches, check the owner profiles to look for inactive owners; try contacting them to see if they are interested in archiving their caches or putting them up for adoption.

[7rxc]

Prince Edward Island ? If that is the one you mean, it's hardly crowded... or do you live on something that is adjacent to PEI?

 

Anyway, I think the idea of processing the existing caches for 'duds', doing something to preserve good ones that have been abandoned/neglected and archiving the unwanted ones, is the best route, as previously mentioned. I suspect that a lot may be 'vacation' caches from earlier times. Those are harder to place these days. As for the rest of them, if space is a problem, then the local association might choose to set voluntary time guidelines for their own members. Cache permanence guidelines already specify minimums that will be expected to be adhered to in most cases before publishing... No reason cache placers couldn't opt to say x years and archive. With exceptions for caches that achieve local 'classic' or 'must do status' and are well cared for.

 

Not much loss for most LPC types etc. so those could recycle quickly.

 

It is something to think about however... some places are really cluttered, others it's not a problem yet.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Prince Edward Island ? If that is the one you mean, it's hardly crowded... or do you live on something that is adjacent to PEI?

Doug 7rxc

 

I took a look at PEI and if that's not crowded I don't know what is. The island does indeed look quite saturated (in which case, IMHO, it doesn't need any more caches) but for a cursory look it appears that the vast majority of caches are very close to roads and, assuming there aren't private property issues there is quite a bit of space between the roads.

[+Olewaif]

The problem I see with this idea is the seperation guideline. You would have Gen1 and Gen2 caches closer than 0.1 miles. One of the first reasons for this guideline was so people wouldn't find the wrong cache when two are close together. Also land managers may not want their land 'carpeted' with caches.

 

Great points!

Here's how I visualize it though. Gen 1 and Gen 2 would have to be intrinsically separate thus separation guideline would not apply. It could be that once you log in here to find geocaches you choose Gen1 or Gen2 caches and that's all that comes up on your screen. Accidental finds would certainly happen BUT perhaps could be largely avoided by A) incorporating a .01 ( = about 50 feet or 75// 80/90???) ) or some such separation limit into the Gen2 cache placement program only from Gen1 caches. As to the land owners, obviously we ask ( at least I do ) now if caches can be placed on private land and that wouldn't change... If they don't want any more, they don't get any more on their land.

I know this is a roughed-out idea and I am not so foolish as to think it doesn't need tuning but I do think the concept needs serious consideration.. Many cachers are one day a week (weekend ) and now must spend a lot of that day traveling to and from an area where there's caches they haven't already found... forget about evening caching..you cant get far enough away from your already found local caches to get new-to-you caches.

Now I'm new enough at this sport that I still only need to go a few miles BUT if you have say 1000 or more caches there's a real good chance you're running out of close ones. And the situation is only going to get worse. I ask you.. where are you going to be caching in 5 years if nothing is done ?? I already know a few geocachers who simply don't cache much now because they can't.. there's no caches to find that they can access in the time they have to spend caching. Also travel to far-off caching locations is $$$ . Not all cachers are wealthy enough to do this even if they have the time.

I think there's a lot of upside to this idea. Geocaching can only grow if we offer new members both the experience of finding caches AND the opportunity of making hides for others. Perhaps as this activity explodes the way it is, it may become necessary to create a regular cycle of generations.. say every 8. 10 or 12 years.

[+narcissa]

And then land managers will stop letting us place caches in public parks because we no longer protect against cache saturation. Good thinking!

[+Student Camper]

I don't think we need a 2nd generation overlay of caches, I think it would create more problems than it is worth.

But I DO think more effort needs to go toward cleaning out the non-maintained and absent CO'caches,

people need to use the NA button more often, it seems nothing much is done unless a NA button is pushed.

If a CO is present they will adress the issues and the cache will live on, if not, it would be archived and die a natural death making room for new hides.

Caches need not and should not be maintained by ghost owners.

I expect I'll get a lot of heat from this, so I'll put on my suit now.

[+narcissa]

I don't think we need a 2nd generation overlay of caches, I think it would create more problems than it is worth.

But I DO think more effort needs to go toward cleaning out the non-maintained and absent CO'caches,

people need to use the NA button more often, it seems nothing much is done unless a NA button is pushed.

If a CO is present they will adress the issues and the cache will live on, if not, it would be archived and die a natural death making room for new hides.

Caches need not and should not be maintained by ghost owners.

I expect I'll get a lot of heat from this, so I'll put on my suit now.

 

Groundspeak should change the name of the "Needs Archived" log, because people attach such a stigma to it. Lately, a local geocacher in my area has been posting nasty-grams on our local forum, calling people out for using NA. It's just disgraceful that people are made to feel they're doing something wrong by bringing a reviewer's attention to a neglected cache.

[jholly]

The problem I see with this idea is the seperation guideline. You would have Gen1 and Gen2 caches closer than 0.1 miles.

I think this is precisely the idea.

[+hukilaulau]

I understand your problem, but I don't think your idea is workable or even desirable.

As mentioned previously, the first thing to do is focus on unmaintained caches to get them archived. Work with your local reviewer to let him/her know exactly what you are doing.

In my local area, cachers have occasionally "reset" large county parks, usually before an event. Several prolific hiders agree to archive many of their caches in a park and then people can place new ones.

if enough people in your area agree that you have reached saturation, they should be willing to sacrifice some of their own hides to open up new ground again. If currently active cachers are unwilling to do that, you're probably just out of luck as far as local caching goes. As the game grows, players are going to have to work more together. Trying to do end runs around the rules to allow MORE caches in a limited area is doomed to failure.

[+BoMS]

Here's how I visualize it though. Gen 1 and Gen 2 would have to be intrinsically separate thus separation guideline would not apply. It could be that once you log in here to find geocaches you choose Gen1 or Gen2 caches and that's all that comes up on your screen. Accidental finds would certainly happen BUT perhaps could be largely avoided by A) incorporating a .01 ( = about 50 feet or 75// 80/90???) ) or some such separation limit into the Gen2 cache placement program only from Gen1 caches.

For me this would have exactly the same effect as if Groundspeak changed the proximity guideline to .01 miles (or whatever). I wouldn't go on a caching trip to a specific area without checking for all caches there. It wouldn't matter to me if they were Gen1 or Gen2. The separation between the two would only serve to make my prep work a little more time consuming*. There are so many places I haven't seen yet so I prioritize going somewhere new on each trip and thus rarely come back to an area I already visited. And if I'm taking a walk in that area anyway I'll do my best to find all the caches hidden there. Not to have a huge find count, but just because they are there waiting to be found.

 

I think the current proximity guideline is fine as it is - it wouldn't be fun if you couldn't go anywhere without tripping over a cache. Then we could really start talking about geolittering. I think (like some of the other posters) that an effort to clear away the neglected caches will serve geocaching much better.

 

* Now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't even be more time consuming for me personally.

 

\Mette

[4wheelin_fool]

I would imagine that if the area did get filled up quickly, it would only lead to being thought of more valuable, and there eventually would be higher quality and creative caches placed. Value is directly related to demand.

 

Each cache or stage of a multi commands 1659 square feet of geoproperty. Stake your claim and post your cache.

Edited November 6, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Too Tall John]

For someone who has 43 hides, including 7 published on the 3rd of this month, you sound awfully Gloom & Doom.

 

I'm going to add a hearty "NO" to the votes for this idea. The proximity rule is there for multiple reasons and to add a "Second Generation" of caches on top circumvents this rule & ignores all those good reasons for it.

 

Looking at PEI, there's a whole lot of what look like PnG caches out there, but there's a whole lot of empty, green space, too. Looks like it's time to start looking into the possibilities of hiding caches in the woods.

[7rxc]

 

I took a look at PEI and if that's not crowded I don't know what is. The island does indeed look quite saturated (in which case, IMHO, it doesn't need any more caches) but for a cursory look it appears that the vast majority of caches are very close to roads and, assuming there aren't private property issues there is quite a bit of space between the roads.

 

I went and did a look again... 1886 caches on my list for the Province of PEI... There were clusters especially around Charlottetown and some of the bigger towns... almost everything was along a road or close to it.

I used my map of the Confederation trail and branches... not much there for a system of about 375 km. And quite a bit of unclaimed road sides if one wanted... seemed to be lots of parkland too... not to mention beaches and so forth... So I don't think it is crowded overall... busy yes. I'd say the problem (other than dud caches) is that most people don't seem to want to leave the car behind for a bike or on foot along the Confederation rail trail (almost all T1)... I would also suspect that there is a lack of scenic vistas by now, at least the best ones would be taken in some cases... Like I said, they can purge the system if needed, and perhaps raise the bar on future cache quality as well... perhaps they don't like power trails and LPC's for whatever reason.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Chokecherry]

I agree there seems to be a lot of green space off the roads on PEI. On a side note I almost was going to vacation on Macinac island which, like PEI, is also busy with caches just because it had a bunch of caches there. Opted for another vacation option instead.

 

But I look at PEI as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.

[+niraD]

I ask you.. where are you going to be caching in 5 years if nothing is done ??

I've got a fairly decent blast radius. I expect my blast radius to grow, so in 5 years, a "quick cache on the way home" will be further and further from home. I'll probably be getting more of my finds while traveling. And that's okay.

 

The solution is to find areas that are not already saturated, and to hide caches there. That's what the saturation guideline is trying to encourage.

[Danielc]

Hi All,

Though I cannot offer a solution, I'm very sympathic with Olewaif's problem. I have a similar problem in that I live in an area that does not have a lot of local cachers. Apart from my caches there are not many around. When I first started caching I could take an afternoon and do a couple and I loved the sport. Now it is a packed lunch and a whole day's activity to get some and I just don't have that time. Hence, I now cache just about only on traveling holidays, many of my caches have not been sought for yonks, and I'm losing interest. Geocaching can only survive while new caches are being hidden and waiting for old ones to be achived before new ones can be placed seems to me to be too slow to allow the sport to survive.

Cheers,

Dan

[+niraD]

Geocaching can only survive while new caches are being hidden and waiting for old ones to be achived before new ones can be placed seems to me to be too slow to allow the sport to survive.

Even assuming that your first premise is true (i.e., that "geocaching can only survive while new caches are being hidden"), there are other alternatives besides "waiting for old ones to be achived".

 

As the saturation guidelines explain, the goal is "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." Based on the complaints I've read, it seems the saturation guidelines are effective.

[+ras_oscar]

To the OP, I sympathize with your predicament. Generally, Cachers find a hide, log a smiley and then exclude it from their next PQ. If you're willing to put some effort into the issue, perhaps you could get the local community to get together and do some "cache cito". Get everybody on a certain saturday, divide the list of active caches in your area and go out and find them all again. You would very likely find many that were missing and/or abondoned. Those become notes to the CO, followed in a reasonable amount of time by a NA. No need to bend the rules. I generally take a more proactive approach to problem hides within my radius. I'll log a DNF, then watch it. If it isn't found for a long while, and a couple follow up trips by me fail to yeild results, I do a NM followed by a PM to the CO with a detailed description of where i looked. if CO is silent and no finds by anyone including me, i'll then take the heat for a NA. I generally allow this process to take approximately 1 year. Not something I would do for a DNF on a casual run to a new area, just my effort to keep the sport fresh.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I don't think we need a 2nd generation overlay of caches, I think it would create more problems than it is worth.

But I DO think more effort needs to go toward cleaning out the non-maintained and absent CO'caches,

 

 

I was going to add my own comment to this thread, but student camper has said pretty much exactly what I was going to say: We don't need an overlay, we don't need to relax the saturation guideline. We do need to do more archiving of caches that are not being maintained. Oh, and we need to be sure to CITO the caches after they are archived!

[+Olewaif]

I started this thread with the aim of getting some ideas regarding what I see as a problem that may or may not be bad now, depending upon where you live but which I think even the most vehement against my little proposal will agree, namely that A) Cache saturation is happening and more important at the rate of growth of this activity, will happen more and more as time goes on. Really active cachers ARE going to find it more and more difficult to geocache as time goes on and they've found all the caches in their area ( when you reach saturation there WON'T be many new ones.. only those that replace the smallish percent of active caches that get archived in say, a year. Think about it.. how many caches have been archived in your area relative to the number of new caches you would like to find next year? I sorta wished now I hadn't even mentioned old caches in terms of their condition, prescence at all or such since really, that's a totally different issue. Even if EVERY single ' bad ' cache out there right now was insta-archived, it's a drop in the bucket ; there would still VERY soon be many geocachers with the same problem of no new caches to find. Of course we should replace, archive etc , old caches but really that is not getting at the heart of my premise and of course IF you have the time AND the $$$ you can travel to new areas. to cache but geocaching will eventually, be it in 5 years. or 10 or whatever be cached out. And long before that happens finding new caches will be like pulling teeth. This whole idea arose out of a small group discussion at an event I attended.. frankly I'm new enough at this that I can still find caches within 20 to 30 miles of home..but some already find it a challenge to geocache with anything like the regularity they could before. Please forget about my local situation on this Island.( which isn't all that bad yet BUT at current rate of growth in cache hides because there ARE very strong private land issues here since all those green fields are crops that farmers don't want anyone near or pastures. and I do not blame them . ditto, please think global or at least think about where YOU live.

Here's another proposal that one local cacher voiced as a thought.. that all caches have a fixed lifetime.. be it 8 years . 10 years.. 12 whatever and they are auto-archived when their time is up. Now we could certainly exclude certain historic or otherwise exceptionnal caches but this would cause an annual turnover and would open up room for new caches. this wasn't my idea but it certainly has up sides too ( and people being what they are.. the downside people will post like mad against it. LOL. ) I don't mind really..but I would like some to propose alternatives OTHER then " archive all the bad ones " and " there's LOTS of room left for new caches "

Here's another proposal.. again not mine. Cache proximity minimum be halved or reduced significantly.

Here's another proposal. All geocachers who want(or must) to cache close to home.. re-up with a new name.. then they can just start over.

Here's another proposal. We do ABSOLUTELY nothing. We understand that this sport as we know it now has a termination point which will be different for all it being when you can't find any more caches nor hide any new caches in any place you can reasonably go to. We accept that at some point , other than on those annual vacations or other travel times, we put the GPS in a drawer and go bowling or golfing . I like golfing and thats' fine with me. Apparently I am one of the few geocachers without unlimited funds for travel and unlimited time to do it in.....RIGHT now my area is reasonably good.. there's still room to expand and there will be for a few ?? more years and maybe your locality is the same. But visualize if you can your area in the year 2012... 0r 2015.... or 20XX . What will it be like then?

heck I don't have the answers.. but there's a LOT of smart people out there who like geocahing and want to keep doing it.. you come up with a way to do it for the next 20 years.. instead of only the next few years.

[+narcissa]

Your wall of text is pure hyperbole. The extremely avid cachers who will absolutely cache out an area to such a dire degree are very much in the minority. I live in Ottawa, where cache saturation has been an issue for years, but all of our most prolific cachers still find plenty to keep them busy and caching almost every day.

 

I don't think you're going to find many people who support turning the entire game on its head in order to accommodate people who would rather find "new" caches in the same old spots over and over again.

 

Having a serious hobby costs money. To geocache, you need a GPS, a computer, internet access, transportation, batteries... it adds up. Really avid geocachers recognize that it's just not possible to stick to a 20 mile radius without running out of caches. Travel is an inherent part of serious geocaching.

[+Student Camper]

"Here's another proposal that one local cacher voiced as a thought.. that all caches have a fixed lifetime.. be it 8 years . 10 years.. 12 whatever and they are auto-archived when their time is up. Now we could certainly exclude certain historic or otherwise exceptionnal caches but this would cause an annual turnover and would open up room for new caches."

 

This is not a bad idea, it would automatically archive nonmaintained caches, there could be an option for the actual CO, not a ghost, to keep it active for another time segment.

[+Chokecherry]

I live in a place with very low cache saturation. Other than about 4 caches I have cached out my home territory. I can't cache without taking a day trip somewhere at this point as the nearest caches are getting to be about 45 minutes to an hour away. My mom and I went 300+ miles one weekend to pick up 9 caches spread out in the countryside.

 

That is what it comes down to for me. So I look at a situation like PEI, knowing that if the caching community is actually proactive and puts up NA logs on the caches not being maintained etc. there are endless chances for geocaches.

 

I hardly see that many caches in an area a problem. Especially when there are places in that area to expand to new caches (as other have noted going off the road perhaps). If I had that many caches around me I certainly would not be complaining about it and would keep my self busy with them.

[+L0ne.R]

A) Cache saturation is happening and more important at the rate of growth of this activity, will happen more and more as time goes on.

 

I see this happening in my area and I do think it will become more of an issue as the game progresses.

 

Really active cachers ARE going to find it more and more difficult to geocache as time goes on and they've found all the caches in their area ....there would still VERY soon be many geocachers with the same problem of no new caches to find.

 

I agree. Travelling becomes the norm in order to find new caches and that can be difficult for some cachers. The price of gas is starting to get me concerned. Spending $50 in gas for a day of caching is something I can't take lightly.

 

Here's another proposal that one local cacher voiced as a thought.. that all caches have a fixed lifetime.. be it 8 years . 10 years.. 12 whatever and they are auto-archived when their time is up.

 

Over the years I've become more and more in favor of a time limit. I'm thinking 3 years with one renewal option. After 6 years the area is open up to new COs for a 2 month period, if no one else plants in that 2 month period then the original CO can have the spot if he/she would like to re-plant.

 

I think this is fair. Gives other COs a chance to plant in an area. Gives finders a new cache to find.

 

It's been my experience that when we've archived our caches, the area was quickly planted by new COs and every time the cache has been a good replacement, in fact better replacements - we got good feedback on our caches mostly because the locations were good, the new COs produced an even better experience by placing mostly ammo boxes.

 

Sometimes it feels like some COs think a cache placement means they own the .1 radius of land and it's their spot for their lifetime. I think a time may come where there will be a need to share, to let others enjoy the experience of cache ownership and let finders enjoy finding new local caches.

[+niraD]

Here's another proposal that one local cacher voiced as a thought.. that all caches have a fixed lifetime.. be it 8 years . 10 years.. 12 whatever and they are auto-archived when their time is up. Now we could certainly exclude certain historic or otherwise exceptionnal caches but this would cause an annual turnover and would open up room for new caches.

This is not a bad idea, it would automatically archive nonmaintained caches, there could be an option for the actual CO, not a ghost, to keep it active for another time segment.

I don't see this helping the OP's perceived problem any more than having people post Needs Archived logs for unmaintained caches. So few caches survive 8 years anyway. Automatically archiving the few that do survive that long would be just "a drop in the bucket", as the OP puts it.

 

If you don't want to clean out all the caches that are readily accessible to you, then don't find as many as you can as quickly as you can. I know people who limit themselves to one cache a day when they are picking up caches near home, and only find multiple caches in a day when they are traveling outside their home area. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

Cache proximity minimum be halved or reduced significantly.

Keep in mind that halving the minimum distance between caches will quadruple the number of caches that can be hidden in a given area. That's a big increase in cache density.

 

You seem to think the distance in the saturation guideline should be reduced. Others think it should be increased (e.g., to 0.25mi/0.4km). Personally, I think it's about right, and I live in an area that is pretty saturated. Most weeks, the nearest new caches are miles away because the local area is saturated, and the local saturation is a big part of why I haven't hidden more caches of my own. But I don't see that as a problem.

 

All geocachers who want(or must) to cache close to home.. re-up with a new name.. then they can just start over.

If that's what they want to do, then nothing is stopping them. Problem solved.

[+narcissa]

A time limit would be unnecessary and punitive.

 

Caches that stay put for years and years usually have something going for them - a good container, excellent maintenance, a great hiding spot with low muggle traffic, a geocaching community that values old caches.

 

Setting some arbitrary lifespan for geocaches penalizes owners/communities who take pride in good quality, well-maintained hides, and encourages a disposable attitude toward geocaches.

 

Newcomers to the game would lose out on the wonderful experience of finding a cache that's been in place since 2000 and reading through years of logs.

 

A geocache doesn't become obsolete just because *you* found it. Most of the people who play this game could be kept quite content for a few years with "only" 2000 geocaches available to them.

[+hukilaulau]

Please forget about my local situation on this Island , please think global or at least think about where YOU live.

Apparently I am one of the few geocachers without unlimited funds for travel and unlimited time to do it in

I think you have a case of tunnelvision. although you SAY "forget about my local situation" that is the only situation you know anything about, and your passionate plea is really all about that situation.

 

Taking you up on your challenge, i looked at my own area, which is actually an island too, and i see that I could easily average 30 caches a month for the next 20 years without any new caches ever being placed. Sure, this would require some long day trips, but that's part of the appeal of geocaching to me anyway.

To sum it up, you are trying to globalize a very local and personal predicament. You have steadfastly ignored suggestions made in the thread that don't agree with your rule changes. That's all I have to say about that...

[GOF and Bacall]

Every time someone in our area complains about not having anyplace to hide new caches I go out and hide a cache.

[+narcissa]

Every time someone in our area complains about not having anyplace to hide new caches I go out and hide a cache.

 

+1

[+narcissa]

Please forget about my local situation on this Island , please think global or at least think about where YOU live.

Apparently I am one of the few geocachers without unlimited funds for travel and unlimited time to do it in

I think you have a case of tunnelvision. although you SAY "forget about my local situation" that is the only situation you know anything about, and your passionate plea is really all about that situation.

 

Taking you up on your challenge, i looked at my own area, which is actually an island too, and i see that I could easily average 30 caches a month for the next 20 years without any new caches ever being placed. Sure, this would require some long day trips, but that's part of the appeal of geocaching to me anyway.

To sum it up, you are trying to globalize a very local and personal predicament. You have steadfastly ignored suggestions made in the thread that don't agree with your rule changes. That's all I have to say about that...

 

Prince Edward Island is sadly lacking in cache variety - hardly anything except traditionals. This was actually a factor in our decision to only spend a couple of hours there on our east coast trip this summer.

 

There's lots of room left there for physical caches, even if the current geocaches never changed. PEI actually seems like an area where I'd expect a lot of cache turnover, because there are so many P&G type caches, which tend to get neglected and muggled often. And what is with the dearth of multis, puzzles, Earthcaches, and letterbox hybrids? PEI is a beautiful place with tons of history! Lead by example and put out some different hides - maybe that will inspire others to archive the bland traditionals in favour of interesting, challenging caches. I'd much rather spend a day on one interesting multi in a forest than find 100 film cans in parking lots.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A) Cache saturation is happening and more important at the rate of growth of this activity, will happen more and more as time goes on.

 

I see this happening in my area and I do think it will become more of an issue as the game progresses.

 

I *don't* see a saturation issue in my area, or most of the places that I've traveled and found geocaches. I've seen numerous threads in the forums over the past few years with a "no place to hide a cache" complaint, have looked at the maps in the areas for the OP, and inevitably it shows that there is plenty of open space of one travels a few miles. There have also been several threads which ask for responses which indicate how many active caches there are from ones home coordinates and although there are some pretty mind boggling numbers the results are all over the place. There are many places, in fact *most* places in the world, where cache saturation is not an issue, and almost certainly never will be. Essentially, what is being proposed is a global solution for a local problem.

 

If the proximity guideline were reduced to .05 of a mile I think the overall quality of caches would degrade. In dense urban or sub-urban environments, it would just get more dense so instead of a cache in every walmart parking lot there could be two or three. There may even be fewer placements in open space areas outside the city, simply because there are more small pockets in the cities where a film can can be tossed into a bush. It may make geocaching more of a "it's all about the numbers" game than it already is.

 

 

Here's another proposal that one local cacher voiced as a thought.. that all caches have a fixed lifetime.. be it 8 years . 10 years.. 12 whatever and they are auto-archived when their time is up.

 

Over the years I've become more and more in favor of a time limit. I'm thinking 3 years with one renewal option. After 6 years the area is open up to new COs for a 2 month period, if no one else plants in that 2 month period then the original CO can have the spot if he/she would like to re-plant.

 

I think this is fair. Gives other COs a chance to plant in an area. Gives finders a new cache to find.

 

Many of my favorite caches have been some of the oldest. I'd be against having a fixed lifetime on caches although having a periodic but unlimited renewal requirement has it's merits. For example, using a sliding scale such that a cache must be renewed after 3 months, then 1 year, then 3 years, and every 3 years thereafter would ensure that caches are maintained and might archive a lot that are not.

 

 

It's been my experience that when we've archived our caches, the area was quickly planted by new COs and every time the cache has been a good replacement, in fact better replacements - we got good feedback on our caches mostly because the locations were good, the new COs produced an even better experience by placing mostly ammo boxes.

 

Another option would be for the PEI cachers to try to replace archived caches with a cache which has a greater difficulty. If many local cachers do this it might make PEI less of a "it's all about the numbers" environment, and although it may take a longer time to find individual caches the overall amount of time spent geocaching could remain the same.

[+DanOCan]

If you ever actually get to a point where you have found every cache around then I suggest you go back to some of the great places you discovered through geocaching and visit them again. There's more to life than collecting smileys. If the only reason to go somewhere is to grab another cache then it must not be a very interesting place.

[+Team Dromomania]

Nope. I'd keep things as they are. If you enjoy the hunt PEI should provide a lot of hunting. If you enjoy hiding then PEI divided into .1 miles would allow about 219,000 caches (impossible in this real world) to be hidden (and found).

[+tozainamboku]

Please forget about my local situation on this Island.( which isn't all that bad yet BUT at current rate of growth in cache hides because there ARE very strong private land issues here since all those green fields are crops that farmers don't want anyone near or pastures. and I do not blame them . ditto, please think global or at least think about where YOU live.

I have to believe that it is your situation that makes you perceive this problem as being do dire.

 

I live in a a cache rich area. In addition to having many caches, we probably also have the highest concentration of geocachers with more that 10000 finds. None of these people are complaining about running out of caches (or running out of places to hide caches). But here they are willing to travel further to find new caches, something that may be more difficult living on an island.

 

At some point the number of caches reaches an equilibrium. Caches are archived at approximately the rate at which they are placed. If the number of geocachers is still growing at that time, then obviously, each geocacher will be hiding fewer caches. But all geocachers will be able to find some number of new caches that are being placed to replace the ones being archived. If the area is large enough, the number of new caches is certainly going to be enough to keep cachers busy. If equilibrium is forced because an area becomes saturated and the area is small (like on an island) then certainly there will not be enough new caches to keep people busy. New cachers will start out with plenty of caches to find, but after awhile the will have found all the old caches and they will either have to look for fewer caches or expand the area the are willing to travel to find caches. This is not the end of the world. When, geocaching was young (or even today in places where there are few caches), people who want to find more caches simply traveled further to find caches. This is what will happen if you live in a area where equilibrium is forced by the saturation rules. Many people live in areas where they can move to new locations to geocache if the area they live in becomes saturated. Eventually they will find an area where either equilibrium has yet to be achieved or where the number of new caches is enough to keep them interested in finding caches.

 

Note that while the cache saturation guidelines can force equilibrium, in large enough areas equilibrium can be achieved long before saturation occurs. I believe that we already close to achieving equilibrium where I live. I have about 12 pocket queries to cover the area I'm most likely to cache in. While I have to adjust the dates from time to time to keep the newest pocket query from filling up, I haven't had to add a new pocket query in over a year.

Edited November 8, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+JL_HSTRE]

Whenever geo-space becomes an issue the geo-community just needs to step up the vigilance with cache maintenance and the archiving of abandoned and missing caches.

[mtbikernate]

I'd be leery of a mandatory auto-archive rule, but I could go for a mandatory renewal process.

 

I've started hunting caches in my area and I've noticed that there are a few folks who hid prolifically years ago, and many of those caches are entirely unmaintained.

 

A number of them haven't been found in two years. I've moved those hides higher on my priority list and instead of simply posting a DNF, I post a NA since the cache is not only gone, but the CO has either moved away or no longer plays the game. Maybe I'll rub some people the wrong way, but if we can get these caches archived, the people who ARE active can place something that will be maintained.

[+narcissa]

I'd be leery of a mandatory auto-archive rule, but I could go for a mandatory renewal process.

 

I've started hunting caches in my area and I've noticed that there are a few folks who hid prolifically years ago, and many of those caches are entirely unmaintained.

 

A number of them haven't been found in two years. I've moved those hides higher on my priority list and instead of simply posting a DNF, I post a NA since the cache is not only gone, but the CO has either moved away or no longer plays the game. Maybe I'll rub some people the wrong way, but if we can get these caches archived, the people who ARE active can place something that will be maintained.

 

When the owner is obviously absent, don't let whiners prevent you from hitting NA.

[mtbikernate]

When the owner is obviously absent, don't let whiners prevent you from hitting NA.

 

So far, nobody's whining. I really only learned of the absence of a couple cachers at an event this weekend, and I went back to look at my logs and saw I had attempted to find a few caches by a particular hider....and I went back and posted NA logs on top of my DNF in cases where the last find occurred years ago.

 

I then started to go through my list of unfound caches and identified a handful (in an urban area near a college campus) without a find in a couple of years. Gonna start checking those out and post NA's on them, too, most likely.

 

I got the impression that most of the active locals found these questionable caches many years ago when they were findable or put the caches on their ignore list.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Generations would not work

 

Some times one just has to expand the caching area or areas.

[+Olewaif]

[

 

Prince Edward Island is sadly lacking in cache variety - hardly anything except traditionals. This was actually a factor in our decision to only spend a couple of hours there on our east coast trip this summer.

 

There's lots of room left there for physical caches, even if the current geocaches never changed. PEI actually seems like an area where I'd expect a lot of cache turnover, because there are so many P&G type caches, which tend to get neglected and muggled often. And what is with the dearth of multis, puzzles, Earthcaches, and letterbox hybrids? PEI is a beautiful place with tons of history! Lead by example and put out some different hides - maybe that will inspire others to archive the bland traditionals in favour of interesting, challenging caches. I'd much rather spend a day on one interesting multi in a forest than find 100 film cans in parking lots.

 

Um just did a quick count of PEI and found 75 + ( stopped counting ) puzzle caches, 35 + ( stopped counting again) multis, 8 earth caches and theres a handful of older virtuals etc.... out there. Now out of a total of around 1800 caches This doesn't strike me as a terribly low number. For fun I did a comparison count of 60- 70 ish miles around Kenora, Ontario ( reply posters area) and found exactly 14 puzzle caches and 11 multis...... hmmmmmm.

I suppose somewheres there a data bank that can show world wide stats re this.. I wonder what it would show and how badly ( goodly ) dear old PEI would fare? I suspect though. not too badly at all. I might also point out that there is a significant number of traditional PEI caches on offshore islands accessible only by boat, swimming ( a few closer ones) or winter ice walking. And a majority of the easyish summer traditional ( and many are far from easy finds) are NOT easy to get to in winter as they are located on narrow red dirt roads ( we call em rdr's) which are never plowed in winter and are strictly snowshoe or ski-in for winter caching. In addition there's many and a growing number of caches on the Confederation Trail. which is strictly hike or bike. This is not in my opinion any more a power cache area then you can find anywhere else.. in fact rather less so than a lot of places.

[+hzoi]

Glad I'm in the Army. This will not be a problem for us for the next ten years or so -- we're almost guaranteed to move before we run out of caches in any given area. Came pretty close last year -- there weren't too many caches around Charlottesville, VA -- but we were only there for ten months, so we just did some rationing and expanded our caching radius a bit.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't want to get too technical, but this forum is totally whacked today. See post below.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+narcissa]

Um just did a quick count of PEI and found 75 + ( stopped counting ) puzzle caches, 35 + ( stopped counting again) multis, 8 earth caches and theres a handful of older virtuals etc.... out there. Now out of a total of around 1800 caches This doesn't strike me as a terribly low number. For fun I did a comparison count of 60- 70 ish miles around Kenora, Ontario ( reply posters area) and found exactly 14 puzzle caches and 11 multis...... hmmmmmm.

I suppose somewheres there a data bank that can show world wide stats re this.. I wonder what it would show and how badly ( goodly ) dear old PEI would fare? I suspect though. not too badly at all. I might also point out that there is a significant number of traditional PEI caches on offshore islands accessible only by boat, swimming ( a few closer ones) or winter ice walking. And a majority of the easyish summer traditional ( and many are far from easy finds) are NOT easy to get to in winter as they are located on narrow red dirt roads ( we call em rdr's) which are never plowed in winter and are strictly snowshoe or ski-in for winter caching. In addition there's many and a growing number of caches on the Confederation Trail. which is strictly hike or bike. This is not in my opinion any more a power cache area then you can find anywhere else.. in fact rather less so than a lot of places.

 

Yes, there's not much cache variety around Kenora, Ontario (I don't know who lives there - not me). It's more forgivable because the total number of caches is pretty low, and it's a fairly isolated, low population area. The terrain there is also far more rugged than PEI, so there are plenty of geocaches placed in wilderness areas that are high terrain at all times of year.

 

Kenora has around 15 000 people. PEI has more than 100 000.

 

Consider this: there are 21 Earthcaches within 25 miles of my house.

There are 394 multi-caches within the same distance.

865 puzzle caches.

And 1858 traditional caches within 25 miles.

 

PEI is what, 20 miles north/south and 100 miles east/west? There's lots of room left for caches, and there's PLENTY of room for quality improvement. Take a look at Shediac (where we went instead of staying on PEI) - there are almost 200 puzzle caches within 25 miles. There are 13 Earthcaches.

 

And PEI only has 8 Earthcaches on the entire island? Ouch.

Edited November 8, 2010 by narcissa

[Mr.Yuck]

The proximity guideline is in place, in part, to prevent cache containers from being mistaken for one another. This is a terrible idea.

 

If you're dying for new caches to find, travel.

 

Yeah, it's not like you guys don't have a bridge now. Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

I actually do agree with your major points that on an Island, saturation is a problem as Geocaching grows as a sport. I have no ideas for a solution, but I can see where you're coming from. Oh, and the total domination of the listings in PEI by roadside traditionals definitely jumps out at an outside observer. It wasn't just Narcissa and NYPaddleCacher. I actually checked out PEI on the maps after reading your Original post, and before reading any replies.