Time To Reduce The Distance Between Caches Rule?

[+CanadianRockies]

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 don't think reviewers will want to make exceptions for "cool" caches any more than they wanted to judge the "wow" factor for virtuals.

[+CowtownJohn]

I think the .1 thing is fine. I already live in an area that is carpet bombed with micros. I don't know that increasing the distance ia helpful, especially since I don't walk real good over distance, and gas is damned expensive. I try to put out good caches in parks; whether I succeed or not is up to the finders, I guess.

[+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 don't think reviewers will want to make exceptions for "cool" caches any more than they wanted to judge the "wow" factor for virtuals.

I agree, my point is how different can the view be 30' apart?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

I disagree. What you're suggesting is basically granting reviewers the power to allow or deny the publishing of a cache based on the quality of the cache. Yes, it might allow the creation of some caches which wouldn't be published due to the proximity limits, but imagine the drama that would ensue when someone submits a listing with what they consider to be a "cool new experience" but the reviewer determines that it's not "cool enough".

[+Walts Hunting]

If anything I would vote to increase. Something like .25 would be nice. When I am biking a new area I will often (like others have commented) skip some so that I can enjoy the ride. I can take 3-4 trips sometimes for me to get all the caches along a trail where they are all 528 feet apart.

[+ngrrfan]

If anything I would vote to increase. Something like .25 would be nice. When I am biking a new area I will often (like others have commented) skip some so that I can enjoy the ride. I can take 3-4 trips sometimes for me to get all the caches along a trail where they are all 528 feet apart.

But if you are walking that same trail then having them every 528 ft lets you skip every other one on the way out and then pick them up as you walk back. So I see no need to change things at all.

[+Walts Hunting]

You are assuming it is an in and out trail. Most of mine around here are loops.

[+ngrrfan]

You are assuming it is an in and out trail. Most of mine around here are loops.

Many of the trails around here are "out and back" types. Granted with two vehicles you can make them one ways but few people do that.

 

And this is one reason that the distance shouldn't be changed. What may "work" in one area may not work in another so a "general" guideline is developed that will satisfy most of the situations.

[+baloo&bd]

But if you are walking that same trail then having them every 528 ft lets you skip every other one on the way out and then pick them up as you walk back. So I see no need to change things at all.

 

Couldn't you do the same thing with .25 to .50 or greater?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Having twice as many caches doesn't chnage the experience...only your find count.

[7rxc]

I agree, my point is how different can the view be 30' apart?

 

In many places it can matter a lot with less distance than that... depends on the locality though.

I know several spots here where there is only one spot on a trail that you can see anything but trees. That one spot has a very nice view of the whole valley to the west. 10 feet in either direction along the trail and ONLY trees and trail. That is not a unique experience as far as places go. Happens all the time. The scenery is simply blocked from view, it is still there otherwise.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+baloo&bd]

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 don't think reviewers will want to make exceptions for "cool" caches any more than they wanted to judge the "wow" factor for virtuals.

I agree, my point is how different can the view be 30' apart?

 

However where do you draw the line? 35 feet shouldn't be that big a difference. If 35 feet isn't, surely 42 shouldn't be that big a deal, and so on and so on. Kinda like when they upped the PQ limits. Now I am seeing messages wanting them even bigger, yet no one has found 1000 (legitimate non power trail) finds in a day, much less 5000. There has to be a line in the sand.

 

Definitely don't reduce it and better yet, increase it so they're not on top of each other. We just did a 100= cache run this last Saturday and very few where under .25, probably .50, yet you could barely see the map under the pushpin graphics on the map. The area was saturated.

Edited December 13, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+waterlubber]

The reason for the .1 rule is so:

1. You go out to find a cache
   
2. There is no .1 mile rule
   
3. You think you found the cache
   
4. You log the wrong cache
   

Get it? Not good.

[+niraD]

The reason for the .1 rule is so:

1. You go out to find a cache
   
2. There is no .1 mile rule
   
3. You think you found the cache
   
4. You log the wrong cache
   

Get it? Not good.

If that were so, then 528ft/161m is overkill. The stated reasons for 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".

[+tozainamboku]

The reason for the .1 rule is so:

1. You go out to find a cache
   
2. There is no .1 mile rule
   
3. You think you found the cache
   
4. You log the wrong cache
   

Get it? Not good.

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.

 

It may be true that no saturation rule would lead to two caches being so close that they they may be confused. The truth is that is is often the case someone will find something other than the cache and think they found it (a letterbox, a cache listed on another site, an old archived cache from this site, someone's private stash, or just some trash). So the rule doesn't actually prevent this problem as it stands. Instead the idea is to encourage you to seek out new places for caches.

 

The problem with pointing out the supposed real goals of the saturation guidelines, is that it will start a debate on power trails. Originally, the goals of the saturation guidelines were use to justify reviewers denying power trails or requiring that they be turned in to multicaches. As power trails became more popular, there was a great deal of inconsistency between reviewers deciding when a power trail got big enough that the guidelines should apply. The result was a change where the reviewers would use the .1 mile guideline as the only limit on caches placed this way.

 

Of course worse than cache saturation is forum saturation. This topic appears way too frequently.