Time To Reduce The Distance Between Caches Rule?

[knowschad]

Note that the saturation guideline is not an absolute:

 

http://support.Groun...=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.

You're just not gonna let go of that one, are you?

[BoredRoom]

You're just not gonna let go of that one, are you?

 

It's worse than you think.

 

While I was here trying to game the guidelines so I could say "Lawyered!" my friend was out moving their cache, which is now published.

 

Any point in creating a feedback item asking them to re-word the guidelines to avoid future misunderstandings?

[+JeepFreak81]

In regards to the distance between caches, I think that .1 miles works fine. I'd be ok with it going up a bit say to 1000 feet.

[Clan Riffster]

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.

But if Groundspeak made the rule that caches must be at least 0.5 miles apart, because they felt it would improve the game somehow, then they would be correct in proclaiming that "their preference" is the only right way to play. Kinda like the 528' rule in place today. That seemingly arbitrary distance was someone's preference before it ultimately became a guideline. If I placed a series of caches roughly 50' apart, I have little doubt my Reviewer would tell me I'm doing it wrong.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Does anyone know when and how the 0.1 mi / 528 ft minimum came about? I always kinda assumed 1/10th of a mile was just nice easy division...

[+The Jester]

I just don't see how increasing the distance will improve the game. That "lame LPC" will just block more area for a "better cache". An increase from 0.1 to 0.25 is a six times increase in the area 'blocked', at 0.5 that 25 times as much area 'blocked'.

[+jellis]

Me I'm more in favor for having some of the newbies just getting the coords right. We have been having many using iphones getting 50 to 100ft off. One (we don't know what they were using) after some DNFs the CO said that they have experience to know that fog could make the coords a little off. The DNF cachers (eventually FTF) used the hint instead and found that the CO's coords were 500ft off. That must have been some heavy fog. That cache got archived because that 500ft fell in too close to a puzzle cache.

[+uxorious]

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.

But if Groundspeak made the rule that caches must be at least 0.5 miles apart, because they felt it would improve the game somehow, then they would be correct in proclaiming that "their preference" is the only right way to play. Kinda like the 528' rule in place today. That seemingly arbitrary distance was someone's preference before it ultimately became a guideline. If I placed a series of caches roughly 50' apart, I have little doubt my Reviewer would tell me I'm doing it wrong.

 

I find it hard sometimes to get a thought across in the forums format.

 

Some rules are necessary, absolutely. But when we have rules, hopefully they will be the minimum needed to achieve the purpose intended. This game would not survive very long if Groundspeak didn't impose some preferences on the players.

 

If the county decides a road needs to be 35 MPH, studies show that is what is safe, and good for that type of road, then imposing their preference on the drivers is OK. If they decide to increase the speed to 50 MPH, I am quite sure there will be people wanting to know why. By the same token if they lower the limit to say 10 MPH I am quite sure they would get a lot a flax also.

 

A proximity rule does seem to be necessary, no problem there. However, I haven't seen any argument that would support either less or more distance. It sounds like the main reason anyone wants more is to try to do something about the increase in lousy hides. I just don't believe increasing it would change that.

[+FMT15]

I'd be for increasing it to 0.25 miles...

 

+1

[+BeatrixCMH]

I've only been Geocaching one month & I feel, if any change is made, it should be an increase in distance. It did not take me long to notice an over-saturation in certain areas...especially since I live downtown. I've already learned to avoid LPCs & truly appreciate being guided to little-known nature preserves, public artworks, historical markers, etc. If I ever own a cache, I will probably wait until I've been actively participating in the sport for a year & have logged quite a few finds. I'm surprised Groudspeak doesn't limit cache placement more, but I certainly understand thier need to be profitable...& limiting participation is not a savvy way to increase membership and/or trinket sales.

[Andronicus]

...(Well, except for those who are only out to rack up numbers but they are playing the game wrong. )

[Andronicus]

... One (we don't know what they were using) after some DNFs the CO said that they have experience to know that fog could make the coords a little off. The DNF cachers (eventually FTF) used the hint instead and found that the CO's coords were 500ft off. That must have been some heavy fog. That cache got archived because that 500ft fell in too close to a puzzle cache.

Maybe there was some flack in the fog... That might do it.

[+niraD]

Does anyone know when and how the 0.1 mi / 528 ft minimum came about? I always kinda assumed 1/10th of a mile was just nice easy division...

My guess is that it had to do with the way a lot of GPS receivers would display distances in tenths of a mile until you got closer than 0.1mi, at which point they switched to displaying distances in feet. If you're in the field checking the distance to the nearest cache and it says 522ft, then you're too close. If it says 0.1mi, then you're okay.

 

But that's just a guess.

[+WarNinjas]

One of the reasons I would not like to see the increase is my daughter and I have been working on some kayak to only caches. We have not placed any yet but hope to this weekend. We are trying to make them really cool! One will be under water and I am hoping it can stay dry in the bay as we have worked hard on it. 4 different containers one inside the other to make sure the log is dry. Most of the cool kind of easy spots to get to have a film can or what ever near shore. If there was a increase we would not be able to place any on the little islands or structures near there. There is one really cool spot we found a structure out in the water that is great for a cache. Many cool spots to hide one as well. However there is a cache on land right near it. Now we are limited to the one end of it. Still great but if we could go anywhere on it we could make one for any boat or what ever but the end that is left would only be accessible by a kayak because of other stuff in the way. I'm still cool with it and we will have fun placing one there and I think it will be a great cache for people out on the water to find but if there was a increase we wouldn't be able to place a cool cache there at all because of the film can someone placed on shore. Anyways I'm just saying a rule to increase the area that a cache can be placed could loose some cool caches because of some not so cool ones and loose some of the fun of the game.

 

So there is a wet log on shore in a film can preventing a fun kayak experience going out to find cool caches. I can see the point of having them placed further apart but can also see it preventing some fun. JMO

-WarNinjas

[+Don_J]

I just don't see how increasing the distance will improve the game. That "lame LPC" will just block more area for a "better cache". An increase from 0.1 to 0.25 is a six times increase in the area 'blocked', at 0.5 that 25 times as much area 'blocked'.

 

This the way that I see it. The crummy cache that no one here seems to like will just exclude more area around it.

 

A few years ago, I was hiking along an eight mile mountain trail. The entire trail had two large oak trees along it. These two trees were the only shade on the entire trail and it was where most stop for lunch or just to rest. The second tree had a very popular cache at it for many years. I wanted to place a cache at the first tree. I felt it was good spot and have since had nothing but positive feedback from it. Going up there, I realized that there was a cache .10 miles before the spot I wanted to place my cache. It was an Altoids tin, under a rock, on the side of the trail. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish this spot from any other along the trail. The cache was basically placed there for filler, something for a cacher to find along a long hike. If the proximity were .25 or .5, I wouldn't be able to hide my cache.

 

I don't see how allowing crummy caches to block the good caches from a larger areas, improves the game.

[+BMndFul]

In general I am for the rule as it stands. However, I do believe there are times when the rule needs to be tossed for common sense. Example: I do not see anything wrong with having two caches within .1 of each other if they are on opposite sides of rivers or lakes or some uncrossable object, for example. A little research by the reviewer or additional questions to the CO will clear such issues. I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

So why not make it a short 2 or 3 stage multi-cache?

 

Oh yes, only one and too much work to set up.

[+BMndFul]

I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

So why not make it a short 2 or 3 stage multi-cache?

 

Oh yes, only one and too much work to set up.

 

What I was referring to was caches from two different COs. I wasn't aware you could make multi-caches with different owners. I am a noob, so if I missed that then you are right that is one way of doing it. Then why not set up a power trail the same way?

[+Bear and Ragged]

I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

So why not make it a short 2 or 3 stage multi-cache?

 

Oh yes, only one and too much work to set up.

 

What I was referring to was caches from two different COs. I wasn't aware you could make multi-caches with different owners. I am a noob, so if I missed that then you are right that is one way of doing it. Then why not set up a power trail the same way?

 

I wasn't aware you could make multi-caches with different owners. You can't

Then why not set up a power trail the same way? You could. Why not? Only one

 

Edited October 7, 2011 by Bear and Ragged

[+LightHouseSeekers]

In general I am for the rule as it stands. However, I do believe there are times when the rule needs to be tossed for common sense. Example: I do not see anything wrong with having two caches within .1 of each other if they are on opposite sides of rivers or lakes or some uncrossable object, for example. A little research by the reviewer or additional questions to the CO will clear such issues. I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

A reviewer once rejected one I submitted as it was about 500 ft NOT the minimum of 528 ft; however there were 2 fences and a very steep hill separating the two. The practical routes between the locations was more like .25 mi. and the two would have been mistaken for each other.

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

[BoredRoom]

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

 

They say that, but it does not reconcile with what is actually out there. Examples could be provided on request.

[+BMndFul]

In general I am for the rule as it stands. However, I do believe there are times when the rule needs to be tossed for common sense. Example: I do not see anything wrong with having two caches within .1 of each other if they are on opposite sides of rivers or lakes or some uncrossable object, for example. A little research by the reviewer or additional questions to the CO will clear such issues. I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

A reviewer once rejected one I submitted as it was about 500 ft NOT the minimum of 528 ft; however there were 2 fences and a very steep hill separating the two. The practical routes between the locations was more like .25 mi. and the two would have been mistaken for each other.

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

 

Maybe, it was wishful thinking that logic would prevail. Of course, I am sure there are some variance between reviewers. I appreciate the job they do for free. But sometimes it raises an eyebrow of the logic used.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Russ!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

 

They say that, but it does not reconcile with what is actually out there. Examples could be provided on request.

 

Sure they can, but they won't be used as a precedent for reviewing a new placement. I have to wonder if reviewers give a greater amount of scrutiny to a cache when the submitter tries to present examples which do not adhere to the current guidelines, because that would indicate that the submitter had not carefully read the guidelines. In the fifth paragraph it reads:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

[jholly]

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

 

They say that, but it does not reconcile with what is actually out there. Examples could be provided on request.

 

Sure they can, but they won't be used as a precedent for reviewing a new placement. I have to wonder if reviewers give a greater amount of scrutiny to a cache when the submitter tries to present examples which do not adhere to the current guidelines, because that would indicate that the submitter had not carefully read the guidelines. In the fifth paragraph it reads:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

Absolutely correct. You want an example? GC92 and GCGV0P are about 73 feet apart. Unless you have a *REALLY* good case don't count on repeating that.

[BoredRoom]

Sure they can, but they won't be used as a precedent for reviewing a new placement.

 

Before you even try to quote a precedent to a reviewer, you might have a look at what's already out there. And if you see saturation-conflicting caches that are clearly separated by an impassible barrier, you would be under the impression that this would be allowed. It isn't until you try to submit the conflicting cache that you are informed that the saturation guideline is absolute -- despite evidence to the contrary. Then you are back to "why them and not me?"

[+lamoracke]

I would be fine with increasing to 0.2, 0.25, or leaving as is. Definitely not less. Not a fan of power trails but its obviously not just power trails that have a lot of caches not much more than 0.1 miles apart. Look at Carkeek Park in Seattle, talk about saturation, and there is a puzzle in there to boot.

 

I think I have found about 4 or 5 spots where 2 caches were 100 feet or less apart. Obviously the original one, one set were traditionals but often its a forgotten about puzzle or multi that was either older, or changed without notifications to anyone.

[+Coldgears]

I can't even read 10 responses without being infuriated. I agree, lower it to .05 miles.

[+jellis]

In general I am for the rule as it stands. However, I do believe there are times when the rule needs to be tossed for common sense. Example: I do not see anything wrong with having two caches within .1 of each other if they are on opposite sides of rivers or lakes or some uncrossable object, for example. A little research by the reviewer or additional questions to the CO will clear such issues. I also think if you can make a rational argument for a cache within .1 it should also be allowed. For example: preexisting cache #1 brings attention to a specific geo feature. Cache#2 400 ft away, within it's description bring a total different feature to point. There needs to be some basic common sense which I am willing to trust the reviewers in making. Really how much different is that then those who chose to make power trails with 50-100 caches right at .1 of each other.

Sometimes you can work with a reviewer to be less then but not too less. I have one in WA that I didn't realize I was less then until a few cachers told me. The reviewer I guess just figured a few feet will matter. I am more for not too much less because of puzzles and multis. I think some lame LPCs or other caches could be recycled. Just wish when they do they don't hide them in the same exact spot. Be alittle more creative.

[+tozainamboku]

A few years ago, I was hiking along an eight mile mountain trail. The entire trail had two large oak trees along it. These two trees were the only shade on the entire trail and it was where most stop for lunch or just to rest. The second tree had a very popular cache at it for many years. I wanted to place a cache at the first tree. I felt it was good spot and have since had nothing but positive feedback from it. Going up there, I realized that there was a cache .10 miles before the spot I wanted to place my cache. It was an Altoids tin, under a rock, on the side of the trail. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish this spot from any other along the trail. The cache was basically placed there for filler, something for a cacher to find along a long hike. If the proximity were .25 or .5, I wouldn't be able to hide my cache.

 

I don't see how allowing crummy caches to block the good caches from a larger areas, improves the game.

First of all, I'm not sure any cache on the backbone trail would be entirely crummy - even an altoids tin under a rock. I'm not sure how you would decide this is filler but yours is not. The challenge cache for this trail has attracted many more geocachers to it an some seem to feel a need to add a cache (when they can fit one in). If the altoids tin under the rock is the cache I'm thinking of, it wasn't even hidden by one of these occasional hikers filling in spot, but instead was place by the same cachers who hid the original oak tree cache. Secondly, hiding caches at the trees were all the hikers and mountain bikers stop for shade is a maintenance nightmare. Placing something under a rock where only a geocacher would think to stop just might be the better cache. (Don's cache is cammo'd and hidden in a part of the tree a little farther from the trail so it hasn't met that fate).

 

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

 

They say that, but it does not reconcile with what is actually out there. Examples could be provided on request.

It's probably up to the individual reviewer as to whether or not to grant exceptions. Some will take the easy approach of never giving a exception so they don't have to deal with someone later getting upset that their cache didn't get the same exception.

 

IMO, exceptions are not given for the reasons people have stated in this or other threads. The exceptions are made when enforcing the proximity guideline would conflict with the stated goal of the proximity guideline. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are 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. In some cases an area may seem "different" enough from the nearby area that already has caches to be considered a new area. If someone else's caches are blocking this area and you can demonstrate there are no other places for a cache in the new area, a reviewer just might allow an exception.

 

As far as the claim that the proximity guidelines are unclear, the guidelines have been rewritten several times. Earlier versions provide a stronger indication that exceptions could be made. So in the past it may have been easier to convince a reviewer to make an exception. But that also resulted in cacher trying to figure out what triggered an exception in order to game the guidelines. The current version, I believe deemphasizes exceptions. They appear to still be allowed by the use of the word generally, but this word also makes it clear that exceptions are in fact exceptions and not to be expected. The reasons for exceptions were never clearly spelled out, but the goals of the proximity guidelines have been for awhile. This is why I contend that exceptions are only made to be consistent with the stated goals of the guidelines and not for any other reason.

[Keystone]

The reviewer said 528 period no exception.

 

They say that, but it does not reconcile with what is actually out there. Examples could be provided on request.

I'd strongly suggest shifting the focus away from LightHouseSeekers' claimed example, because it does not correspond with the facts behind any of their cache submissions. I can only assume they are referencing a cache hidden under an alternate account.

[+Hunter1227]

I would like to see it possibly increased....

I don't know if others have had this happen but I use my gps and phone and I have actually found caches that aren't/wasn't listed within less that 100' of the one im looking for and I have had caches just pop up on my phone out of the blue in which some are still active while others are nowhere online...yet they have a log with recognizable signatures....

I think it may also be the equipment one person uses as opposed to another and the signal received and they may not be averaging the coordinates....

All in all I believe the best is being done

Edited October 24, 2011 by Hunter1227

[jholly]

I would like to see it possibly increased....

I don't know if others have had this happen but I use my gps and phone and I have actually found caches that aren't/wasn't listed within less that 100' of the one im looking for and I have had caches just pop up on my phone out of the blue in which some are still active while others are nowhere online...yet they have a log with recognizable signatures....

I think it may also be the equipment one person uses as opposed to another and the signal received and they may not be averaging the coordinates....

All in all I believe the best is being done

You found geo-litter. There was a cache there that was archived but the owner, probably absent, did not pick up the cache. Changing the saturation limits will not solve that problem.

[+WanderingAus]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

It was obviously an unsuccesful attempt to circumvent the saturation rule, and was archived very quickly.

 

Of course saturation isn't a problem for me, six months ago there were 36 caches within two miles of my home, and I owned 20 of them. There are still plenty of very worthy holes to be filled, even though the last six months saw 21 new caches placed in that circle.

 

A week ago I went on a maintenance run of 750 miles (1200 kilometres), visited 13 of my caches, placed 2 new caches, found 5 caches (everything within 25 miles of my planned path to my caches), and re-visited two caches I'd previously found.

 

There was room for maybe 100,000 or more additional caches, but only about 4,000 or so really good spots which deserved a cache. The average number of finds for my remote caches is about 4.2, but it's not about the numbers.

[+BigChiefS4]

 

Try using a proper GPS...

 

 

My Garmin 62S doesn't start measuring in feet until I'm less than .1 miles away, same as my iPhone 4S.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

[knowschad]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

 

Nothing says those have to be the correct coordinates, though. Also, the ability to add child coordinates is only a few years old.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

 

Nothing says those have to be the correct coordinates, though. Also, the ability to add child coordinates is only a few years old.

 

Or the coordinates may have been adjusted post publishing. Or the reviewer made a mistake. (despite the things said by Keystone's publicist they do, on occasion, make mistakes)

[knowschad]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

 

Nothing says those have to be the correct coordinates, though. Also, the ability to add child coordinates is only a few years old.

 

Or the coordinates may have been adjusted post publishing. Or the reviewer made a mistake. (despite the things said by Keystone's publicist they do, on occasion, make mistakes)

Oh, yeah, sure. Go on. Go ahead and get this thread locked.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

 

Nothing says those have to be the correct coordinates, though. Also, the ability to add child coordinates is only a few years old.

 

Or the coordinates may have been adjusted post publishing. Or the reviewer made a mistake. (despite the things said by Keystone's publicist they do, on occasion, make mistakes)

Oh, yeah, sure. Go on. Go ahead and get this thread locked.

 

Better to get it locked now than wait for it to die of old age.

[+Sol seaker]

Knowschad wishes to put in his two-cents worth here as being a firm "no".

This is all he has to say on this at this time.

 

 

For myself, I tend to agree with him.

I believe the founders of Groundspeak were very wise in creating this rule and it should not be taken lightly.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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

 

Sorry, Knowschad said "No"

 

I agree with him.

Edited November 14, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

 

It wouldn't be the first time someone provided bogus final coordinates to get around the saturation guideline.

[+Davequal]

I would also +1 the .25 mile or better........

 

I don't see the need to completely fill urban areas with Micros...... and LPC......

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have heard of a puzzle cache that met the guidelines, but when the puzzle was solved the result was well inside the .1 mile radius. The first to finder mentioned "seems to be rather close to ...", second to finder did a Needs Maintenance, and third to find went straight for the jugular with a Needs Archived.

 

I suspect this is just an urban legend geocaching tall tale. You have to put the coordinates for the actual container in the form that the reviewers see. So a reviewer does know if the final is too close to another cache, and will reject the cache for that reason.

 

It wouldn't be the first time someone provided bogus final coordinates to get around the saturation guideline.

 

Oh, no! Tell me it isn't so!

GC2JHHD Interesting cache.

GC2JY86 Also an interesting cache.

Nicely hidden .1 apart.

Oops. Wait a minute. The coords on the second one are about 80 off! Several have commented. One even posted corrected coords.

Works if you use incorrect coords... But, they are actually only 462' apart. Was it done deliberately?!? Take your guess. What has the troop learnt from this lesson?!? Take your guess.

[+TerraViators]

I'd be good with 1 mile.

I would possibly support a .2 mile, but not a mile. The reason is because of the Trail to Insanity caches in Denton, TX. This is a great trail along an arm of the Trinity River with some of the best caches in the area. If interested, you can see for yourselft. They are hidden by OMR419.

[+MustangJoni]

I'd be good with 1 mile.

I would possibly support a .2 mile, but not a mile. The reason is because of the Trail to Insanity caches in Denton, TX. This is a great trail along an arm of the Trinity River with some of the best caches in the area. If interested, you can see for yourselft. They are hidden by OMR419.

 

I did those last weekend, and they were awesome!!!

 

I don't want to see an increase in distance, but mainly because if someone hides a micro in the parking lot of a park, then I would have to go further to hide a real, regular sized cache.

 

And I don't want to see the distance decreased either. I think it is just fine the way it is!

Edited November 17, 2011 by MustangJoni

[+calvinrtvp]

I vote for keeping it at .1 miles, but reviewers should have the authority to approve a cache that creates a cool new experience within that radius, so long as the two caches don't conflict otherwise. Two beautiful vistas may be within 500 feet of each other that you might not ever know the other one existed without the second geocache. I'd bypass hundreds of park and grabs or metro micros for one or two really cool experiences any day. It's the memories that make geocaching worth savoring to me.

[GOF and Bacall]

I vote for keeping it at .1 miles, but reviewers should have the authority to approve a cache that creates a cool new experience within that radius, so long as the two caches don't conflict otherwise. Two beautiful vistas may be within 500 feet of each other that you might not ever know the other one existed without the second geocache. I'd bypass hundreds of park and grabs or metro micros for one or two really cool experiences any day. It's the memories that make geocaching worth savoring to me.

 

Sounds like a good spot for a multi.

[+bflentje]

I vote for keeping it at .1 miles, but reviewers should have the authority to approve a cache that creates a cool new experience within that radius, so long as the two caches don't conflict otherwise. Two beautiful vistas may be within 500 feet of each other that you might not ever know the other one existed without the second geocache. I'd bypass hundreds of park and grabs or metro micros for one or two really cool experiences any day. It's the memories that make geocaching worth savoring to me.

 

Sounds like a great spot for two very cool caches.

[+wimseyguy]

I vote for keeping it at .1 miles, but reviewers should have the authority to approve a cache that creates a cool new experience within that radius, so long as the two caches don't conflict otherwise. Two beautiful vistas may be within 500 feet of each other that you might not ever know the other one existed without the second geocache. I'd bypass hundreds of park and grabs or metro micros for one or two really cool experiences any day. It's the memories that make geocaching worth savoring to me.

They do have the authority to publish caches that are slightly less than 528' apart. This is why we have guidelines, not rules. But this particular guideline gets far fewer exceptions than most.

Is it really going to be that different an experience and vista only 20' apart, but not 30'?

If so, just post accurate coords that are at least 528' apart and suggest on the cache page that they move 10' in whichever direction gives them that awesome second experience.