Jump to content

Too many caches


Recommended Posts

Today's newsletter mentions the great number of caches in some areas.

I have had this discussion with other geocachers who wish to hide a cache near their base of operations but thee is no space left.

 

Maybe the topic has been discussed in a forum and I have missed it so I will take the risk of openign the topic again.

 

I am in this situation where I live. My 'not thouroughly thought through' suggestion is to have some rule, or policy, such as having a cache withdrawn, either by the owner, or automatic delisting, if a cache has not been logged for a year or more. This will then free up a space for a new cache.

Link to comment

I live rurally. While this whole having too many caches in a concentrated area may be a problem for some there are a bunch of us who don't live in places with high cache saturation and where there aren't a lot of cachers. I like to cache rurally when doing road trips.

 

Automatically delisting a cache because it hasn't been logged for a year would be a problem here. A bunch of off the beaten path (or as my friends call it morbidly rural) caches don't get logged for over a year. This year I have found at least 3 that haven't been logged in a year or in one case 2 years. Two of those caches were extremely cool caches and it would be a shame if they automatically vanished because of an auto delisting. We do occasionally have new cachers here who should have the chance to experience it or even tourists coming through.

 

I have a few on my list to do that haven't been found in a year or two after the regulars did them. i would hate to see them gone before I got a chance to try.

 

Some puzzle caches go unfound for quite some time. There's no reason they should be archived. Also some high terrain caches go unfound for sometime (some of those up here as well). They aren't tieing up any spaces other people would use here. what about the caches in extremely rural places in other parts of the world that rarely get found? Are those caches really hurting anything being there?

 

The implications of what you say will affect a lot of us non-metropolitan cachers adversely. We shouldn't be punished because of your problems in a city environment.

Link to comment

All good points I agree with. These situations went through my mind and I was hoping that somebody affected by my suggestions would respond.

 

I live rurally. While this whole having too many caches in a concentrated area may be a problem for some there are a bunch of us who don't live in places with high cache saturation and where there aren't a lot of cachers. I like to cache rurally when doing road trips.

 

Automatically delisting a cache because it hasn't been logged for a year would be a problem here. A bunch of off the beaten path (or as my friends call it morbidly rural) caches don't get logged for over a year. This year I have found at least 3 that haven't been logged in a year or in one case 2 years. Two of those caches were extremely cool caches and it would be a shame if they automatically vanished because of an auto delisting. We do occasionally have new cachers here who should have the chance to experience it or even tourists coming through.

 

I have a few on my list to do that haven't been found in a year or two after the regulars did them. i would hate to see them gone before I got a chance to try.

 

Some puzzle caches go unfound for quite some time. There's no reason they should be archived. Also some high terrain caches go unfound for sometime (some of those up here as well). They aren't tieing up any spaces other people would use here. what about the caches in extremely rural places in other parts of the world that rarely get found? Are those caches really hurting anything being there?

 

The implications of what you say will affect a lot of us non-metropolitan cachers adversely. We shouldn't be punished because of your problems in a city environment.

Link to comment

My rural caches get logged only rarely. I have a cache with just 7 finds in 5 years. Nothing wrong with it at all. No other cache within 4 miles in any direction. Closing it off would not free up any space at all.

 

There is a total of 42 caches within 20 miles of my house. Closing any of them would be a useless gesture.

Link to comment

If caches were automatically delisted, how can we keep the retrieval of said caches in check? Many would be oft put by an auto delist and not bother retrieving and then adds to geo-trash.

I don't think its a good idea, nor a fair idea. Just because and area is saturated by those that came before a new cacher, doesn't mean it must be opened up for others. Discover another area nearby, and start there.

Link to comment

Yes I see some spots of high concentration in Sherbrooke (I'm guessing that's where you were referring to) but just a couple miles away I see lots of open space. I've seen way more concentration.

 

Caches should never be automatically delisted for age or time between finders or any other similar reason. If a cache is missing or not maintained then you can post a Needs Archived and either it will be fixed or eventually it will be archived and there's free space.

 

I keep a bookmark of caches I have found that were not found to at least a year prior to my visit. So far puzzles and multis: http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=f01eb1b8-1ead-42e1-aacd-9d47b5311d03

Edited by IkeHurley13
Link to comment

I have archived caches because I feel they have run their course. I encourage COs to look at their caches and think about archiving some that are in great places but have been found by most of the locals. You can hide a new cache in the area or open the space for someone else to give it a shot. I recently archived a great cache that, in my opinion, at the end of its run. Most of those who would hunt for it had done so and another cacher wanted to hide one in the area. When she asked if I thought there would be room near the cache I offered to archive it. Now all those cachers who found the old cache can look forward to returning to the area to find the new one.

 

That said, there are a couple of my caches that I won't willingly give up. They are my personal favorites. At least of those I have hidden. I would be highly annoyed if someone came along and said I had to archive them because they had been there too long.

Link to comment

removing caches that are hardly ever found will not help with saturation. Caches that are rarely found are usually in very far rural areas like mountainous places or deep into a national park, so removing those few caches will not help in an area say around Seattle where deep saturation of caches occur. The areas with the deep saturation have caches that keep getting found.

 

Personally, I think its bollux that GS would consider removing caches that have not been found in a while. As long as the owner is active and the cache is findable, why pull the cache? Its not right in my opinion and will not help saturation issues.

Link to comment

I ran the numbers for my state...

 

Less than 3% of the caches have not been found in the last year. In the VERY cache dense metropolitan area, the number dropped to 1.8% of the area caches or about 1 cache per square mile.

 

In other words, automatically deleting caches that haven't been found in a year wouldn't make much difference.

Link to comment

Today's newsletter mentions the great number of caches in some areas.

I have had this discussion with other geocachers who wish to hide a cache near their base of operations but thee is no space left.

 

Maybe the topic has been discussed in a forum and I have missed it so I will take the risk of openign the topic again.

 

I am in this situation where I live. My 'not thouroughly thought through' suggestion is to have some rule, or policy, such as having a cache withdrawn, either by the owner, or automatic delisting, if a cache has not been logged for a year or more. This will then free up a space for a new cache.

 

I have a multi-cache that requires a long hike or (as I encourage) a modest bike ride. It has not been logged online in over a year and a half. I rode by yesterday to swap out geocons that had been there too long and discovered they were gone. That prompted me to check the logbook. Surprise! A total of four people have signed the log since the last finder that logged online. Absence of online logs does not mean that the cache is not being found.

Link to comment

As I see it, this is yet another attempt to create a global solution for what is a regional issue. While there are lots of places that have a high saturation rate, in most parts of the world, saturation is just not an issue and doesn't need any sort of controls.

I agree with that. Perhaps the 'local' solution for those that do have near saturation would be for the local association/group(s) make an effort to have their members free up spots for new caches voluntarily. It won't help with non local members, low count cachers and occasional cachers who want to place a few and leave though, but it would be a start. I'd bet that many who join local groups have placed a few 'ordinary' caches in their early activity, but have better ideas now. Nothing wrong with reinventing and relisting your own cache sites or trading with someone else.

 

I wish it were a fraction of that crowded around here. Not many local caches. Few that haven't been done by me. I do want to place a few myself, someday. Problem here is too many vacant, good spots, but new cachers are starting here and we can all stand a few more.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

This topic usually comes up with relatively new cachers. The OP has been around for a few years though they don't have a lot of finds so I'm not sure if all of this applies.

 

New cachers start thinking about all the good places they would hide a cache - a favorite park, an interesting public space, the hiking path in the woods where they walk their dog. They soon discover all these places already have caches and they wonder if all the place to hide caches are taken. The answers is always no. There are new places where there are not as many caches. Sometimes this means traveling a little further from town. Other times it means getting permission where no one has bothered before. Sometimes it's figuring out a way to make the hide special in a place that is otherwise too ordinary.

 

What a newbie also doesn't realize it that caches, particularly urban and suburban caches, are not permanent. Cachers often do on their own what the OP suggests should be a rule. They voluntarily archive caches that have been out for a while and are now getting fewer finds. More often, an urban hide goes missing one too many time and the cache owner decides to archive the listing instead of replacing it again. Finally, of course, are the many hides where the cache owner has stopped geocaching or has moved away without adopting out the cache. Eventually these caches go missing or need some other kind of maintenance. It it up to the geocaching community to bring these to the attention of the reviewer with a Needs Archive log. Often that is all that is need to get the original cache owner to archive the cache and open up the space. Otherwise, the reviewer will step in and archive the cache. In a cache dense urban area, caches are being archived almost as fast as new ones get created.

 

Finally if there are already "too many" caches in an area, not everyone needs to be hiding caches. For a long time (and still in some less populated areas) cache hiders were at a premium. Unless someone hides caches there are no caches to find. In a dense area there are always enough people hiding caches to keep having new ones to find (except for if you are high numbers cacher who clears out new caches faster than they get placed; then you end up expanding the area you cache in and traveling to find areas with large numbers of caches to find). While newbies often want to give back by hiding caches, it isn't necessary. There can be other ways to contribute to geocaching.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I am against cache auto-delisting as well. But I am for cache deletion if the CO hasn't logged in over a year. I've seen some caches that says NM for a new log or DNF's and the CO hasn't logged in over a year (or sometimes 2 yrs!!) I know of one cache where the cache is gone but people are logging it as a find because there is a letterbox 15 feet away but the CO has been inactive for over a year and he's not going to go online and delete the bogus finds...

 

So, inactive CO for over a year should have their caches should either 1) remove their cache 2) let someone else adopt them

Link to comment

The saturation guidelines are intended "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". It sounds like your immediate area already has plenty of caches. (FWIW, my immediate area does too.) Perhaps it would be better to seek out new places to hide caches.

Link to comment

How about requiring the CO to respond to a notice every two years asking if the CO wants the cache to continue? A simple click yes or no. This would help with cache abandonment as well as saturation. :)

 

How is that going to help alleviate cache abandonment?

I think there are two problem that are both using the term "cache abandonment". One is when cache onwers stop caching leaving an active cache that will eventually need maintenance. The other are those caches that are archived even though the cache container is still out there. Some view the piece of abandoned tupperware in the woods as litter that can be traced right back to geocaching.

 

I think this suggestion was meant for the first problem. Rather than waiting for someone to post a Needs Archive, Groundspeak could try to determine which caches have been abandoned by their owner and automatically archive them. It's probably true that this would only make the second problem worse.

Link to comment

I zoomed out on the map of your area a bit and it does seem to be a highly saturated area.

 

You have only found 19 at this point. As you find more you will get more ideas on where to place them.

 

I wouldn't worry about hiding them for a while if I were you. Just find them for now. You will become a better hider once you've found more. and the more you find the more ideas you'll get on where to hide them.

Link to comment

I am not for any type of automatic cache deletion.

 

People around here like to find the old caches. We've got one here that's one of the oldest in the area and the owner hasn't logged in for a few years. I'd really hate to lose that one!!! I've got it on my watch list in case it needs any maintenance I'll go take care of it. But I suspect I'm not the only one doing that as it's lasted this long.

 

We have a lot of boat caches around here that can only be found in the summer months.

I've found a lot of caches that haven't been found in a year, including boat caches and puzzle caches. Those were some of the best caches around.

 

I know of another cache whose owner recently passed away.

People have been keeping that one up as a tribute to him. I know another cacher in our area who recently passed away too, and I imagine people are doing the same with his caches. It's a nice living tribute to these people. A way they can live on in our hearts and minds.

Link to comment
...having a cache withdrawn if (it) has not been logged for a year or more.

Lonely caches are my favorite kind. 10 of my active hides haven't been found in over a year. One of them hasn't been found in 26 months. Yet, there is sits, just waiting on someone willing to slog through 8 hours of swampy bushwhacking, dodging quicksand and fending off all manner of critters for just a smiley.

Link to comment

I have archived caches because I feel they have run their course. I encourage COs to look at their caches and think about archiving some that are in great places but have been found by most of the locals. You can hide a new cache in the area or open the space for someone else to give it a shot. I recently archived a great cache that, in my opinion, at the end of its run. Most of those who would hunt for it had done so and another cacher wanted to hide one in the area. When she asked if I thought there would be room near the cache I offered to archive it. Now all those cachers who found the old cache can look forward to returning to the area to find the new one.

 

That said, there are a couple of my caches that I won't willingly give up.

 

+1.

 

I too have a couple I don't want to give up but I've given up most of the rest after about 3 to 5 years. When I get a bored with visiting the same spots over and over for maintenance visits I retrieve and archive them. I've been pleasantly surprised at the great caches new COs have placed soon after. Nice cache containers in good hiding spots.

Link to comment

I have archived caches because I feel they have run their course. I encourage COs to look at their caches and think about archiving some that are in great places but have been found by most of the locals. You can hide a new cache in the area or open the space for someone else to give it a shot. I recently archived a great cache that, in my opinion, at the end of its run. Most of those who would hunt for it had done so and another cacher wanted to hide one in the area. When she asked if I thought there would be room near the cache I offered to archive it. Now all those cachers who found the old cache can look forward to returning to the area to find the new one.

 

That said, there are a couple of my caches that I won't willingly give up. They are my personal favorites. At least of those I have hidden. I would be highly annoyed if someone came along and said I had to archive them because they had been there too long.

My problem is that all of my caches are my personal favorites. ;)

Link to comment

Today's newsletter mentions the great number of caches in some areas.

I have had this discussion with other geocachers who wish to hide a cache near their base of operations but thee is no space left.

 

Maybe the topic has been discussed in a forum and I have missed it so I will take the risk of openign the topic again.

 

I am in this situation where I live. My 'not thouroughly thought through' suggestion is to have some rule, or policy, such as having a cache withdrawn, either by the owner, or automatic delisting, if a cache has not been logged for a year or more. This will then free up a space for a new cache.

that would knock out hard puzzles.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...