Distance rules

[+robnzh]

This may set up a hornet's nest but I think it needs to be thought about. It probably has been raised before but I can't find the topic.

 

I have had a cache rejected because it was less than the required 0.16 km from an existing one- it was about 0.14. Fair enough, as the reviewer must administer the rules as they stand. However the cache in question was way up a hill, the proposed one was a short distance from the bottom of the hill near a road, you have to go up a winding path to get up the hill to the existing cache so anyone who found the existing cache in confusion for the proposed new one or vice versa should not be caching! I can do something at 0.16 but it won't be anywhere near as good.

 

I also wanted to set up a new cache in the city, but it turns out to be 0.15 km from an existing cache and any other location for the new one would be inferior to what I had planned. The thing is that there are city blocks with several buildings in between, if you were looking for either the existing or new one and confused the two you really would be seriously lost!

 

I suppose things could be a bit different in the forests etc but I still can't see say 120 metres separation being too much of a problem. (100 might be Ok but I realise some allowance needs to be made for coordinates being inaccurate meaning separation could be a bit less than thought.)

 

I guess the proximity rules may have been set when technology was inferior to what it is now, wondering if it is time to review them.

[+BaylorGrad]

Proximity rules are set to avoid enormous cache saturation. I, too, am bummed when my desired cache placement location is unavailable due to the proximity of another cache... But think about it this way: You basically have 2 options: (1) Wait until the other cache is archived. This could take days, weeks, months, or more likely, years. (2) You could consider this an opportunity for an adventure, and find another neat place that hasn't been discovered, and place a cache there.

[+dfx]

The "confusing one cache with another" thing is really not the main reason for that rule, because in reality, you're right, it's not really an issue. The rule is there simply to keep people from posting too many caches in too small of an area.

[+StarBrand]

The proximity 'rule' is actually known as a saturation guideline. The issue is saturation - aka - too many caches in one area. The number has always been portrayed as totally arbitrary and not based on any technology. It is what it is.

 

There are many folks wishing that it had been set at .25 miles instead of .1 - me included.

[knowschad]

I feel your pain... when you find what seems to be the perfect spot, maybe the only spot, but there's another cache too close, it really stinks. But the current proximity rule is something that I have to say that I agree with. I think that it is about the right distance. Sorry, I can sympathize, but I can't agree.

[+baloo&bd]

I suppose things could be a bit different in the forests etc but I still can't see say 120 metres separation being too much of a problem. (100 might be Ok but I realise some allowance needs to be made for coordinates being inaccurate meaning separation could be a bit less than thought.)

 

I guess the proximity rules may have been set when technology was inferior to what it is now, wondering if it is time to review them.

 

When I saw the title, I thought this was going another direction.

 

Actually, I think the guideline should be more along the lines of .25 miles. There really is no need to stack up caches like they are already.

[jholly]

You have probably figured out by now your not going to get a whole lot of support for decreasing the distance here. I've never seen anyone successfully argue for a tighter saturation limit.

[+palmetto]

I sympathize with the issue of encountering a too close cache, especially in urban environments.

 

Early in my cache placing career I realized that the single hide in the pretty old part of town had blocked out the entire area. It's amazing how much territory that 0.16 km (one tenth mile) covers in city blocks.

 

That said, no decrease is likely to be forthcoming.

 

Part of what the current distance allows is for caches to move and cache owners to edit the coords, nearly up to that 0.16 limit.

 

A shorter saturation rule would also need to entail a more limited range for owners to edit their own coords. I think this would cause more pain then gain.

[+kissguy&frannyfru]

Personally,this is just my opinion. Ive never seen saturation as a bad thing,i want more caches and i think 250ft would be a good distance between caches. Probably won't be many here that agree but that's always been my thinking.

[+rav_bunneh]

I'm happy with the .1 mile rule.

[+Bobfireman]

While I have no problem with the .1mi rule, I think terrain should factor into the decision as to whether a cache placed less than .1 mi (as the crow flies) is allowed.

In my area, I can place a cache that is less than .1mi from another one, but in reality, it may be on the other side of a canyon, requiring a hike of several miles. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen, and such circumstances should be taken into consideration. Just my 2 cents worth...

[+StarBrand]

While I have no problem with the .1mi rule, I think terrain should factor into the decision as to whether a cache placed less than .1 mi (as the crow flies) is allowed.

In my area, I can place a cache that is less than .1mi from another one, but in reality, it may be on the other side of a canyon, requiring a hike of several miles. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen, and such circumstances should be taken into consideration. Just my 2 cents worth...

Not always successful - but I am well aware that many exceptions to the saturation guidelines have been granted for just such a case!!

[AZcachemeister]

The proximity 'rule' is actually known as a saturation guideline. The issue is saturation - aka - too many caches in one area. The number has always been portrayed as totally arbitrary and not based on any technology. It is what it is.

 

There are many folks wishing that it had been set at .25 miles instead of .1 - me included.

 

I was thinking about 0.15 anyways...

[+dfx]

I would prefer the minimum distance requirement to be 64.89 kosaya sazhen.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

I'm happy with the .1 mile rule.

 

DITTO

[jholly]

Actually I was thinking it should be upped to 100 smoots. I mean really, 528 feet?

[+Walts Hunting]

Ii am fine with the rule but reviewers will grant exceptions under limited circumstances. I was caching in a small town in Washington a couple of years ago and after grabbing one told it to find the nearest and noticed the distance was well under the .1 rule so I hopped in my car and set out to get it. 4.5 miles later I got there (it was across a river from the other one. Only about 300 feet but more than that to get there.

[+Don_J]

I was absolutely livid when the reviewer wouldn't publish my cache because it was 6' away from an existing cache. Obviously, I was mad at myself. I knew about the other cache, but thought it was archived. At least I got a smiley when I went to relocate mine.

 

I've had two exceptions granted. One because of opposite sides of a canyon with no direct route, and one that could have gone either way. five mile trail that is totally exposed except for two oak trees. I hung a cache in one and verified that it was .1 away from an Altoids in a rock pile hide. My three hiking party's GPSrs all agreed. The actual hiking distance was .3, but there was no real barrier. When I submitted it, my reviewer posted a note that it was 12 feet two close to the other cache. I wrote back and explained the circumstances and also explained that he has the final say and I would not appeal his decision. An hour later, it was published.

 

I have a feeling that with the allowance of power trails, we may have lost the ability to futz around on the margins. It seems to be zero tolerance now.

[+Mark+Karen]

I too would vote for 0.25 miles, there does seem to be a cache around every corner in some places! In reality what's 162 metres really? It only takes a couple of minutes to walk that distance.

Edited April 27, 2011 by markhewitt1978

[+GeoGeeBee]

I'd like to see the distance set at 0.8 furlongs.

 

On a related note, I think the official Geocaching unit of velocity should be "furlongs per fortnight."

[+Gp30sieb]

I have no problem with a minimum distance rule if the route around a physical barrier is taken into consideration, as others have mentioned. I am thinking of placing a cache at some ruins of a railroad trestle, but think I am going to find that it is less than .1 mile from a stage 1 of another cache on the opposite side of the creek. That is .1 miles as the crow flies. To get from one to the other will be about a 3 or 4 mile drive given that the two are on different sides of a creek. When crows begin to geocache, we can play hardball with the .1 mile, but until then physical barriers should be taken into account.

[GOF and Bacall]

Physical barriers are sometimes taken into account. You need to prove that the barrier is substantial. How far you have to drive is irrelevant. If you can walk or swim it it isn't a barrier.

[+Sioneva]

Actually I was thinking it should be upped to 100 smoots. I mean really, 528 feet?

 

I second this! Everything should be measured in smoots!

[knowschad]

Physical barriers are sometimes taken into account. You need to prove that the barrier is substantial. How far you have to drive is irrelevant. If you can walk or swim it it isn't a barrier.

 

I'm going to bring this one up on the Mythbusters forum, if you don't mind.

[+kwcahart]

My vote would be 60 rods.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Since Rhode Island is such a small state, we only have a 400' proximity offset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding.