Jump to content

Time To Reduce The Distance Between Caches Rule?


T/S
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

HI,

 

I am relatively new to Caching and as I try to make hides near my house, I keep running into the .1 a mile rule.

 

Unfortunately, I have checked it with my Iphone and it shows the nearest cache is .1 a mile away.

 

I submit, I get told its too close. In one case 21 feet too close. (meaning 507 feet away)

 

Has there been any thought to reducing the hide distance rule as areas get populated with geo caches? Say to maybe 300 or 400 feet?

 

Seems like the newer Cachers may be hard pressed to find good hide locations.

 

Maybe I am talking out of turn as a newer Cacher but It seems to me that over time, in cities, this could be inevitable.

 

Thanks for listening.

T/S

Link to comment

Yes, over time there may not be space close to where you live. A few caches that I have made had to be moved because of the distance rule. I think most people here will not agree with you that the distance should be shortened. I like probably 95% of all caches I find, even micros and nanos in uniteresting locations. But shortening the distance would, IMHO, only drive up the number of of micros and nanos at uninteresting locations.

 

I am sure if you check out the geocaching map for your area you can find a place to put yours within driving distance.

Link to comment

HI,

 

I am relatively new to Caching and as I try to make hides near my house, I keep running into the .1 a mile rule.

 

Unfortunately, I have checked it with my Iphone and it shows the nearest cache is .1 a mile away.

 

I submit, I get told its too close. In one case 21 feet too close. (meaning 507 feet away)

 

Has there been any thought to reducing the hide distance rule as areas get populated with geo caches? Say to maybe 300 or 400 feet?

 

Seems like the newer Cachers may be hard pressed to find good hide locations.

 

Maybe I am talking out of turn as a newer Cacher but It seems to me that over time, in cities, this could be inevitable.

 

Thanks for listening.

T/S

Read this knowledge book article on checking for cache saturation.

 

As for the distance, 0.25 would be okay with me. Others that have come here with the complaint they have no place to hide a cache because of the 0.1 mile limit are either not looking at all possibilities or they are in such a heavily saturated area that perhaps there should not be more caches.

Link to comment

Yeah, even as green as I am I don't think I'd want the distance shortened. There are some really cool places around here to hide things but they've been taken. First come, first served I guess. I have a few places that are still empty so I'm wanting to get out asap to grab them before they're taken.

 

I've got nothing against the micro/nano cache with just the log but, for my own, I don't want to do too many of those. Not saying I won't, because I just bought some micro containers, but I want to at least hide them in a place where people can come and enjoy the surroundings and think of the cache as the bonus to coming to such a great spot. With all the views of Mt. Fuji around here I'm sure I'll find some cool places.

MULLY

Link to comment

I feel your pain. When I first thought about hiding a cache it seemed to me that every possible spot in town was already gone. Like I was a newcomer too late. I don't know about your town, but as I spent more time pouring over maps and websites, hiking around the fringes of town in the evenings after work, I eventually found quite a few places where I could hide a cache. Usually in publicly-owned green areas or wildlife areas that I never even knew existed (even though I've lived here all my life).

 

You may have to go farther out of town. You may have to spend a lot of time scouring around. And if you wait, eventually some of the non-maintained caches will get archived, opening up spaces. But I suspect the .1 rule is here to stay for a long time yet.

Link to comment

I feel your pain. When I first thought about hiding a cache it seemed to me that every possible spot in town was already gone. ... I eventually found quite a few places where I could hide a cache.

 

This has been my experience as well. For a while, I moaned and groaned about how impossible it was to find a spot, but now I've found there's alot more spots available than I thought. It's all about getting to know your neighborhood better, partially by finding the cache that are already there and watching for caches that are archived.

 

What about these parks? Looks like you could squeeze a few more caches in:

 

Northcote Park

Lake Murray Park

Princess Del Cerro Neighborhood Park

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

San Diego is pretty saturated, to be sure, but I can see where you are based, more or less. Go a little bit east and it starts loosening up. There *must* be a trail here or there that has some space.

 

I'm certainly opposed to lowering the .1 limit, although I don't see a particular need to raise it either.

 

In all events, welcome to this thing of ours.

Link to comment

First of all welcome to the hobby/addiction. You have done pretty well for only a few months. You are lucky to have so many in your area to find. There are many places where cachers complain about the lack of caches.

 

As you can probably see the general feeling by most all in these forums is the distance should stay the same or even go up. The issue has come up enough times to get a firm feel for this community's feelings.

 

Maybe you could consider going outside of the immediate area. There appears to be a great deal of open space to the East that might offer some interesting places.

Link to comment

First of all welcome to the hobby/addiction. You have done pretty well for only a few months. You are lucky to have so many in your area to find. There are many places where cachers complain about the lack of caches.

 

As you can probably see the general feeling by most all in these forums is the distance should stay the same or even go up. The issue has come up enough times to get a firm feel for this community's feelings.

 

Maybe you could consider going outside of the immediate area. There appears to be a great deal of open space to the East that might offer some interesting places.

 

Very nice post from Walt. I looked at your area too, as it sounds like several others did. Very nice job on your 5 hides, all have at least one favorite point. I do feel your pain, even though I myself had free reign to put caches just about anywhere I wanted when I started out in 2003. But as you see, there's definitely the general feeling (as stated above) that the distance remain the same, or even go up. You'll just have to go further out to find places for those nice hides of yours.

Link to comment

 

Seems like the newer Cachers may be hard pressed to find good hide locations.

 

 

If your definition of a 'good hide location' only involves 'less than 528' from the nearest cache', then I'd say you need to change your definition.

 

We have at least one team running around the Phoenix Metro area 'plugging holes'. Every time they find room for a cache, they put one there. Cute write-ups, but mostly pointless caches that are only there for the numbers.

 

If you really do find a super-cool location for a cache (as in a place you would bring your out-of-town relatives to see), then I would discuss the possibility of moving a cache that was blocking the placement with that cache's owner.

 

Otherwise, I'm in the make it .25 crowd too.

Link to comment

The only time I would want to see the distance reduced is on a legit power trail out in the desert or relative middle of nowhere so there might be some incentive to walk between a few finds. :rolleyes: j/k

 

But around town and in the normal caching zones, .1 is fine and I wouldn't argue with .2.

As others have already posted-you may need to explore a bit further out, you may need to reconsider your motivation to hide, you may need to consider getting a real GPS.

As long as you are having FUN you are WINNING.

Link to comment

I know the map does not tell the full story, but there seems to be plenty of open spaces in the general area. And holy crap if I lived to a park that big I would be in heaven!

 

One thing I noticed looking over your hides and finds is you have done only one cache above a 2 Terrain. If you're capable I would start finding some with higher terrain and while going for them look around for potential spots.

 

Also I noticed you have only found caches within 10 miles (which probably means your hides are also within ten miles). Sometimes you may have to venture out further to find a really good spot.

 

Also set up a notification for Archives. That way when a cache gets archived you can know about it instantly and scout the area.

Link to comment

I feel your pain. You live in what might be the most cache-dense area in the world.

 

There are still locations available but it takes more creativity. As someone who lives in a very cache dense area as well I'd suggest:

  • Setup notifications of caches being archived in your area and have caches ready to deploy.
  • Use GSAK and the Google Earth Circles macro to help identify open spots.
  • Get to know your local cachers. Some with LOTS of hides are willing to archive an older cache if you'll place something interesting.
  • Expand your area a little bit on where you're willing to place a cache.

Good luck!

 

 

Link to comment

Cities, in general, do not lend themselves to "good hides" anyway.

 

With more and more cities coming out with their own geocaching limitations, city and regional park limitations, State and National Forests limitations, on and on...yes, one is limited to where they can place a cache. Then comes the proximity rule. That rule, to me, is a great thing. I don't want to find a cache on top of another. It it troublesome enough when a letterbox is near a geocache for confusion and area damage.

 

So, chin up. Take a hike somewhere outside of your neighborhood and hide a cache. Just be sure that you can maintain it regularly.

Link to comment

The current distance guideline seems to work well.

 

While this does lead to a lot of caches that are just a Park and Grab, so what? I have seen plenty of caches that were just over .1 mile that were very worthy caches. Caching along a trail or FSR in the mountains, it wouldn't be unusual to find caches with a WOW factor that close to each other.

 

Those who really feel the distance should be longer are kind of saying "if you don't play my way, you are playing wrong."

 

Finding urban P&Gs, or even rural P&Gs, may not be as much fun as the "wow factor" caches. However, a lot of us enjoy both. This game needs to appeal to a large cross section of people, and the current distance guidelines work very well for that.

 

I do suspect where you live may have something to do with how you feel about the distance guidelines also. If you live in an area that is open,flat with great distances from place to place, a longer rule may feel right. If you live in an area of heavy woods lots of hills and mountains, maybe not so much.

Link to comment

Note that the saturation guideline is not an absolute:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304#saturation states:

 

Physical elements of different geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles apart.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Examination of an area will show that there are cache pairs that are in conflict with this guideline.

 

Note that they are usually separated by some sort of physically-impassible barrier such as a river.

 

Be advised that this is not grounds for having your cache published -- even though the guideline on them is poorly phrased, you cannot cite precedents.

 

Interestingly, there is no documentation on the barrier exception so a cache placer might be mislead into believing that a barrier-separated conflicting cache might be published, because others have been.

Link to comment

Im with the original poster. I am all for closer caches in parks. I have been in a few state and National forest and have seen some great spots that were less than .10 miles from another cache. It would be wonderful for the person to get the one cache and than come and get the other one. I have seen many beautiful spots in parks. The numbers are not going away and with power trails it is already here. I see a vast difference between .10 miles on a power trail and one in a park. But I think the problem would be for Reviewers to have to check each cache. So .10 looks like only option. I do wish multi's and regular caches could be within 150' of each other.

Link to comment

I definitely whine about not having being able to find hide places, but I am completely fine with the status quo and, like others, think increasing the distance might improve quality caches. My complaint isn't due to the distance rule, but the proximity of lower quality caches. But hey, first come first served and I like to believe they are genuinely trying to contribute to the hobby and enjoying themselves. I can always find a place. My sadness comes about when I find the perfect place, a place that tells a great story, or has an interesting history, but there is a cache too close! But that's part of the game. :)

 

Bamboozle, I like your sig. I wish I had that attitude! :)

Link to comment

I definitely whine about not having being able to find hide places, but I am completely fine with the status quo and, like others, think increasing the distance might improve quality caches. My complaint isn't due to the distance rule, but the proximity of lower quality caches. But hey, first come first served and I like to believe they are genuinely trying to contribute to the hobby and enjoying themselves. I can always find a place. My sadness comes about when I find the perfect place, a place that tells a great story, or has an interesting history, but there is a cache too close! But that's part of the game. :)

 

Bamboozle, I like your sig. I wish I had that attitude! :)

 

I'd give up 90%+ of my locations to someone wanting to do a really nice cache......if you have an idea mail the owner re your intentions. I'm beting they'll give you the location ( after all it'll be a find for them )

 

My sig is true but make no mistake I like some a lot more than others :D

Link to comment
My complaint isn't due to the distance rule, but the proximity of lower quality caches.

 

I think a lot of those who feel increasing the distance guideline is a good idea, somehow think this would make for higher cache quality.

 

You could make the distance a mile or more, and the people who put out soso caches will still put them out. There would just be fewer places to put good or bad ones. It wouldn't have much effect on the quality itself.

Link to comment

I definitely whine about not having being able to find hide places, but I am completely fine with the status quo and, like others, think increasing the distance might improve quality caches. My complaint isn't due to the distance rule, but the proximity of lower quality caches. But hey, first come first served and I like to believe they are genuinely trying to contribute to the hobby and enjoying themselves. I can always find a place. My sadness comes about when I find the perfect place, a place that tells a great story, or has an interesting history, but there is a cache too close! But that's part of the game. :)

 

Bamboozle, I like your sig. I wish I had that attitude! :)

 

I'd give up 90%+ of my locations to someone wanting to do a really nice cache......if you have an idea mail the owner re your intentions. I'm beting they'll give you the location ( after all it'll be a find for them )

 

My sig is true but make no mistake I like some a lot more than others :D

 

Not always true. I offered this idea and they would only do it if I GAVE them the cache.

Link to comment
Those who really feel the distance should be longer are kind of saying "if you don't play my way, you are playing wrong."

Actually, what I think they are saying is, "This is my preference".

I haven't heard anyone suggest that someone who prefers closer caches is playing wrong.

Add my name to the list of folks who would like to see the proximity increased to .5 mile.

Link to comment
I have been in a few state and National forest and have seen some great spots that were less than .10 miles from another cache. It would be wonderful for the person to get the one cache and than come and get the other one.

 

If both locations are cache-worthy than a single Multi would be an easy way to insure people see each location.

 

And, the added bonus -- since Multis tend to be skipped over by the people out to run up numbers your cache may attract the sort of cacher who is actually interested in seeing the locations you have brought him/her to rather than just signing the log and rushing off to the next smiley.

Link to comment
Those who really feel the distance should be longer are kind of saying "if you don't play my way, you are playing wrong."

Actually, what I think they are saying is, "This is my preference".

I haven't heard anyone suggest that someone who prefers closer caches is playing wrong.

Add my name to the list of folks who would like to see the proximity increased to .5 mile.

 

If you make a rule that effects how the game is played, you are saying "my preference" is the only right way to play.

Any game needs some rules, but the fewer we have, the more people can enjoy the game their way.

 

I cannot understand how anyone would feel fewer caches would improve this game. Would one of you who really thinks we would be better with .25, .5 or even more would make this game better for everyone.(not just yourself) I will keep an open mind, please tell me the current rule is not enough.

Link to comment

 

If you make a rule that effects how the game is played, you are saying "my preference" is the only right way to play.

Any game needs some rules, but the fewer we have, the more people can enjoy the game their way.

 

I cannot understand how anyone would feel fewer caches would improve this game. Would one of you who really thinks we would be better with .25, .5 or even more would make this game better for everyone.(not just yourself) I will keep an open mind, please tell me the current rule is not enough.

 

I think the current proximity guideline is fine.

If there is going to be a change, I think it should be increased, not decreased.

I think more caches to hunt is definitely a good thing.

I think there are currently plenty of areas where there is plenty of room to hide lots more caches.

 

I think reducing the proximity guideline will (for the most part) merely increase the number of pointless caches with no redeeming qualities other than to increment the finders smilie count. We certainly have enough of those already.

Can you imagine a 'Power Trail' with caches every 300 feet? Every 200? Heck, maybe 50 feet is enough since you are going to log all of them anyway, and there is no difference between them.

Link to comment
Those who really feel the distance should be longer are kind of saying "if you don't play my way, you are playing wrong."

Actually, what I think they are saying is, "This is my preference".

I haven't heard anyone suggest that someone who prefers closer caches is playing wrong.

Add my name to the list of folks who would like to see the proximity increased to .5 mile.

 

If you make a rule that effects how the game is played, you are saying "my preference" is the only right way to play.

Any game needs some rules, but the fewer we have, the more people can enjoy the game their way.

 

I cannot understand how anyone would feel fewer caches would improve the game. Would one of you who really thinks we would be better with .25, .5 or even more would make this game better for everyone.(not just yourself) I will keep an open mind, please tell me the current rule is not enough.

 

OK, I'll try.

 

When caching was in it's early years, it was about getting out doors, seeing interesting places and the inner child in all of us sort of playing "hide and seek".

 

The game evolved, some for the good, some more neutral and some just plain bad. One of the problems that also could be viewed as a positive was people going for numbers. the good was that it satisfied our competitive nature for those that wanted it, the bad was people just started placing caches for the sake of placement rather than because they had a cool spot or a creative hide style.

 

GS created the guideline of .528 feet for possibly these reasons, however they stated that anything less people risked looking for one cache and finding another. Also, like it or not, too many caches too close can/will have a negative impact on the environment. Think about a field with a cache every 100 feet. There would be no searching as trails would be created from people walking between them in the shortest possible route. The competitive nature that some of us satisfy is now gone because it now becomes just like a fisherman who goes to a well stocked small pay lake to fish, where's the effort needed?

 

What about urban? Quite frankly it is easy to stay within the 528 in urban settings because most city blocks are about 528 feet, so no problem there.

 

This thread was started, per your logic, to impose someones way of playing on me by allowing caches to be placed as little as 100 feet apart. This means that if a WalMart hast 15 lampposts in the parking lot, 7 of them can have caches or every telephone pole along a country road can have a cache attached to it. What fun? How would this improve the game? How is my responding imposing, or for that matter even requesting, to have the rules changed?

 

I am not one who automatically thinks a micro or "nano" are lame, however I do agree that I would like to see cachers at least have a reason for bringing me to a spot. It could be because they have come up with some really cool container or the spot is in some way significant, even if only to them.

 

Now you'll dispute me point by point, and that's fine, however understand that all of us are responding as requested and are offering what we think would improve the game. If this makes you feel we are "imposing" something on you, possibly the forums are not the type of discussion you are looking for.

Link to comment
Now you'll dispute me point by point, and that's fine, however understand that all of us are responding as requested and are offering what we think would improve the game. If this makes you feel we are "imposing" something on you, possibly the forums are not the type of discussion you are looking for.

 

I am not about to dispute you point by point, I pretty much agree with a lot of what you said. I do not think the distance should be reduced either. What I am having a hard time understanding is why anyone want to increase the distance. Seems just fine to me at .1.

 

I have to agree with what AZcachemeister said also. "If there is going to be a change, I think it should be increased, not decreased.". What I am saying is, there is no need to change it, either increase or decrease.

 

As for whether anyone is imposing anything, of course we are imposing something, anytime we make a rule. If we weren't imposing on someone there would be no reason for the rule. If you feel the forums are not the place for discussion of rules that will impose on someone, than you really don't understand the concept of forums. :)

 

I wouldn't do a power trail type of cache on a dare, and I seldom go for parking lot caches. However, I have no problem with those that do them.

Link to comment

I think 528 feet is fine. A tenth of a mile versus a half mile is a pretty big jump. For alot of public parks, a half mile might put you in the middle of the adjacent neighborhood.

 

For those proclaiming the distance should be increased, I assume you practice what you preach and will archive any of your hides that are closer than .25 or .50 miles from another cache. After all, those are closer than what you believe the proximity guideline should be :D

Link to comment

I think 528 feet is fine. A tenth of a mile versus a half mile is a pretty big jump. For alot of public parks, a half mile might put you in the middle of the adjacent neighborhood.

 

For those proclaiming the distance should be increased, I assume you practice what you preach and will archive any of your hides that are closer than .25 or .50 miles from another cache. After all, those are closer than what you believe the proximity guideline should be :D

Mine had at least 0.25 mile distance. If someone sneaks one in between two of my caches so be it.

Link to comment

I don't want them closer or further apart. To change it now would be confusing with ones that are already set up. I'm sure they would be grandfathered in but then would make it confusing for new cachers. It was set up as it is and I vote to just leave it as that. No need to change it now.

-WarNinjas

Link to comment

I agree they need to be reviewed and changed. Move the to something like .25 or .5 is much more reasonable.

 

That sounds good in theory but it's never going to happen. If the distance were increased to .25 I suspect that there are tens of thousands of caches out there now that would be less than .25 miles from another cache. How are these going to be handled? If all of the caches within the new minimum proximity distance are going to be archived what will the algorithm be and who is going to review the existing cache database to determine which caches meet that criteria. If all caches between .1 and .25 miles from each other are grandfathered imagine what that's going to do for newbie cachers that already have trouble understand the "there are no precedents" guideline.

Link to comment
I cannot understand how anyone would feel fewer caches would improve this game. Would one of you who really thinks we would be better with .25, .5 or even more would make this game better for everyone.(not just yourself) I will keep an open mind, please tell me the current rule is not enough.

 

I once saw a Wal-Mart with four caches in the parking lot. All were hidden by different hiders. The last one even said in the description "Hey, this corner of the parking lot was far enough away to support another cache."

 

If the proximity guideline was increased, the odds are at least two of those hiders would have either not bothered showing me the same parking lot. Perhaps one wouldn't have hidden a cache at all and the other would have found a different location to show me.

 

I'd much rather have two caches in different locations than four caches in one location. I believe that improves the game for everyone. (Well, except for those who are only out to rack up numbers but they are playing the game wrong. :P )

Link to comment
If you make a rule that effects how the game is played, you are saying "my preference" is the only right way to play.

I haven't made any rules. If Groundspeak ever announces an opening for a rule maker, and the prerequisites include old, fat, crippled guy with a stinky hat who lives on the other side of the country, then perhaps I'll have a chance to have my preferences influence what is the right way to play. Till then, it's just a preference.

 

Any game needs some rules, but the fewer we have, the more people can enjoy the game their way.

That may be true, though, as I'm sure you realize, changing the proximity one way or another would have no impact on the physical number of rules, (guidelines), we currently have. Groundspeak would simply make a slight alteration to an existing rule.

 

I cannot understand how anyone would feel fewer caches would improve this game.

I don't think anyone is suggesting less caches. If you divide the land masses on our planet into a grid of, roughly 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile, marking a waypoint at each intersecting line, I think you'll find the total number of possible hides far exceeds the current number of hides by a huge margin. If Groundspeak increased the proximity rule, I'm assuming, based on their past history, that the current caches would be grandfathered, and therefor, unaffected.

 

Would one of you who really thinks we would be better with .25, .5 or even more would make this game better for everyone.(not just yourself) I will keep an open mind, please tell me the current rule is not enough.

In my opinion, the worst aspect of this game are those hides placed for no other reason than because there was not a hide there, or placed for no other reason than to increase the find count of other players. (Yes, I know some people enjoy the whole numbers game. I'm not knocking them. I'm just stating that I don't share that opinion) By increasing the proximity to half a mile, or even 5 miles, there would be gobs of parking lots devoid of film cans. I see this as a good thing for the overall game.

Link to comment

 

Would one of you who really thinks we would be better with .25, .5 or even more would make this game better for everyone.(not just yourself) I will keep an open mind, please tell me the current rule is not enough.

In my opinion, the worst aspect of this game are those hides placed for no other reason than because there was not a hide there, or placed for no other reason than to increase the find count of other players. (Yes, I know some people enjoy the whole numbers game. I'm not knocking them. I'm just stating that I don't share that opinion) By increasing the proximity to half a mile, or even 5 miles, there would be gobs of parking lots devoid of film cans. I see this as a good thing for the overall game.

 

While I fully agree hides placed for no other reason than because there was no hide there, or just to increase find counts, are a poor use of this game, increasing the proximity would not change this.

 

There are just too many (usually new) hiders that do this, and we aren't going to change it this way.

 

There are a lot of very good caches that are close to the .1 distance. I have a cache that is by a little waterfall, in an area of old growth trees that is very peaceful. I get a lot of compliments on it. It is just over .1 mile from another cache by another waterfall on the same creek. People seem to really like that one also. Unless you are Danial Boone and want to crash through the underbrush, over rocks and fallen logs, it is a min. of 2 or 3 miles to get from one to the other.

 

There are many parks that have multiple places you might want to bring people to that are closer than the .25 mile some are mentioning.

 

I do not like the explosion of caches that are leaky containers hidden under lamp posts or thrown under a bush, just because someone feels the need to hide something, or that someone wants to make it easier to up your find counts. However, increasing proximity won't help this.

 

So if this is the only reason those of you want more distance, than I will stay with my thought that you are mistaken. If there are any other reasons to increase I would love to know what they are.

 

One other note, when I say "if you make a rule", I don't mean you personally, I mean the collective you. Either the whole group, or, in this case Groundspeak. :)

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...