New Rules

February 9, 2012

In cities like DFW, it is getting increasingly harder to get the recomended 528 ft away from other caches in public parks and areas that caches can actually be placed. I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so. I also think that Geocaching volunteers should take the word "should" to mean an aproximation. Not an exact. Of course by over regulating the game you can also make it not fun any more.

February 9, 2012

3k · February 9, 2012

It's not going to happen. The rule is there for a reason. If your area is too saturated, maybe it's time to start the community cleaning up disabled, wet, and missing caches.

We've been over this hundreds of times, and it's a good rule.

It would sicken me if my area became that saturated with caches. I wouldn't add to it.

February 9, 2012

Even better, why not remove the limit entirely until the entire area crunches underfoot.

8.6k · February 9, 2012

No.

1.3k · February 9, 2012

It's been discussed a LOT in these forums and it isn't likely to change. I find it difficult to believe that the saturation is that bad but I'll poke around GC.com and look at the area.

As Planet said, the GC community in DFW should start reporting disabled, wet, and missing caches. That's likely to open up a lot of space.

Edit: It's pretty saturated. At least the area I looked at. :blink:

Edited February 9, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

4.4k · February 9, 2012

Throw it on the pile of human rights. The right to have a place conveniently nearby where you're allowed to place a cache.

Get out the city. It's good for you.

8k · February 9, 2012

In cities like DFW, it is getting increasingly harder to get the recomended 528 ft away from other caches in public parks and areas that caches can actually be placed. I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so. I also think that Geocaching volunteers should take the word "should" to mean an aproximation. Not an exact. Of course by over regulating the game you can also make it not fun any more.

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 can be frustrating for a new cacher who lives in a cache dense area to try to hide a cache in the location they want. The problem can be exacerbated if they live in an area with many puzzle or multi caches.

If the density of caches in your area is so high that you are having trouble finding places where you can hide a cache, then perhaps there are enough caches being hidden there. You can look for area with few caches and consider hiding there. Often there are reasons why there are few caches in a area, however, so this may not always be a good solution.

After you have been around for a while, you will probably notice that most urban hides have a limited life. These caches tend to get muggled more often and the cache owners either end up archiving them, or, in many cache dense areas, the hiders have stopped caching and there is no one to maintain the cache. You can be proactive an post needs maintenance log on caches that need maintenance, and if no one does maintenance you can post a needs archive. Watch list the caches that are blocking your site and when they get archived rush out and place your cache.

It seems to me that reviewers used to be more flexible on the 528 ft. distance, allowing exceptions for a number of reasons. Nowadays it seems that exceptions are much rarer. My guess is that reviewers found that if they gave exceptions in some cases and didn't grant exceptions in others, they would get accused of treating some cachers differently than others. Reviewers try to treat all cachers the same.

10.2k · February 9, 2012

It's not going to happen. The rule is there for a reason. If your area is too saturated, maybe it's time to start the community cleaning up disabled, wet, and missing caches.

We've been over this hundreds of times, and it's a good rule.

It would sicken me if my area became that saturated with caches. I wouldn't add to it.

I think this is going to be the correct answer, in my opinion. Many before you have suggested loosening the 528 ft. rule, and I don't believe it's ever going to happen. So try not to get too frustrated when you come back and see 99% of the posts saying "no".

Yep, I looked at your 2nd hide, looked at the Geocaching map and zoomed out. That is one saturated Metroplex you have there. I don't know, I'm an old-timer, so I say the answer would never be to add to the saturation, but get rid of the Geo-trash.

2k · February 9, 2012

definitely been asked before and am sure its frustrating for a new cacher who lives in a super saturated area (assuming DFW is), but no, I would not want it any closer as a rule. Too close as it is.

2.6k · February 9, 2012

definitely been asked before and am sure its frustrating for a new cacher who lives in a super saturated area (assuming DFW is), but no, I would not want it any closer as a rule. Too close as it is.

Nothing a 20 to 30 min wouldn't cure. Some parts are very saturated. Some have very few. The area around the metro is very 'cache limited.'

February 9, 2012

No.

+1

5.7k · February 9, 2012

No.

+1

Add mine too. +1. :mad:

3.9k · February 9, 2012

I would recommend posting NA logs on caches with several out of trend DNF's (consistent finds followed by consisent DNF's). Hopefully one of the following will happen.

1: The cache owner will replace the cache.

2: The cache owner will archive the cache.

3: The reviewer will eventually disable and/or archive the cache.

Option 2 and 3 will clear out room for your placement. Option 3 may take a couple months.

Added note: this also works for NA logs in the more severe cases of ongoing of maintenance issues.

3.6k · February 9, 2012

I will quote Knowschad... "Keep the area alive, not the cache."

1.5k · February 9, 2012

Geocaching is supposed to be about location. I have never been to an area that has a compelling spot every 528', much less every 400', and I live in one of the most beautiful places in the world.

Local cachers keep squeezing more and more caches into the same parks. I really wish someone would send me someplace new that would inspire me to say "cool!" rather than bringing me back into the same black spruce forest again and again.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Ladybug Kids

1.2k · February 9, 2012

You have twice as many caches within 50 miles than I have in my entire state (SC). So I can see why some of those area parks are full. While I enjoy placing caches I think I would be okay with never having to leave 50 miles from home to find lots of awesome looking caches. One of my geofriends moved out there last fall. He's found spots for 70 caches so I have no doubt you can find some spots.

February 9, 2012

WOW! I just did a search for Dallas Fort Worth....look at all those caches!!! you should be happy!!!! Do me a favor and search Elgin, SC. and then think about your comment. Talk about saving gas money lol You should be content just finding caches, i would never have time to actually place one there lol

3.6k · February 9, 2012

It's not going to happen. The rule is there for a reason. If your area is too saturated, maybe it's time to start the community cleaning up disabled, wet, and missing caches.

We've been over this hundreds of times, and it's a good rule.

It would sicken me if my area became that saturated with caches. I wouldn't add to it.

+1

2.8k · February 9, 2012

Get out the city. It's good for you.

+1

Even in Little Rhody there are loads of places to hide caches out in the woods.

February 9, 2012

+1 for no's

Aim for QUALITY not quantity! We've got enough p&g's!

3.7k · February 9, 2012

I remember writing a similar post months ago. Amazingly, the more i looked the more spaces I found.

How about Forth Worth, just to the west of you?

9.3k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so.

Your home turf isn't infected enough? You want to add to the problem?

8.9k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

3.2k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

+1

1k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

^ That

8.6k · February 10, 2012

Well, it does seem that the question was kinda, sorta, maybe blunted.

Truly, it's not about getting as many caches as you can into an area. Cripes, some areas aren't even deserving of a cache at all, much less many of them.

We live in an area that really has few caches -- not many cities either, for that matter. It was a long time before we encountered an LPC... had to drive 50 miles to get to it! I suppose we could slip a cache into the crotch of every tree. Now wouldn't that be fun.

Even with lots of space to place caches, it just wouldn't seem right to cache a cache lurking behind every third tree or so. Besides, the bear, squirrels, raccoons and the like would just toss 'em around or chew them up ('cept ammo cans -- they don't like those).

2.2k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

Markwell FTW!

10.2k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so.

Your home turf isn't infected enough? You want to add to the problem?

I guess it just goes to show you how deeply P&G's are woven into the fabric of the game in the DFW Metroplex. You should know, several areas of Florida are similarily "infected".

I do feel bad for the OP, and it seems as he's being piled on. There must be one person out there who agrees the distance should be reduced. Anyone got a sock puppet?

2.6k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so.

Your home turf isn't infected enough? You want to add to the problem?

I guess it just goes to show you how deeply P&G's are woven into the fabric of the game in the DFW Metroplex. You should know, several areas of Florida are similarily "infected".

I do feel bad for the OP, and it seems as he's being piled on. There must be one person out there who agrees the distance should be reduced. Anyone got a sock puppet?

Yes but I made it from the socks I wore when I went for my 5 mile mountain hike yeserday, so it would just stink up the threads. :rolleyes:

5.6k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak just ignored all this hype and left the rule alone?"

3.9k · February 10, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak just ignored all this hype and left the rule alone?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Why am I in the forums and not out finding geocaches?"

19k · February 11, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak just ignored all this hype and left the rule alone?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Why am I in the forums and not out finding geocaches?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "TOMORROW IS SATURDAY!!!"

1k · February 11, 2012

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak just ignored all this hype and left the rule alone?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Why am I in the forums and not out finding geocaches?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "TOMORROW IS SATURDAY!!!"

Every time I see this commonly posted response, I think to myself, "The forums would be a lot more orderly if everyone posted topics according to the forum schedule."

Edited February 11, 2012 by Ambient_Skater

1.3k · February 11, 2012

In cities like DFW, it is getting increasingly harder to get the recomended 528 ft away from other caches in public parks and areas that caches can actually be placed. I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so. I also think that Geocaching volunteers should take the word "should" to mean an aproximation. Not an exact. Of course by over regulating the game you can also make it not fun any more.

Having countless micros crammed into areas 400' apart doesn't make the game more fun. Nor every 528'. Having quality caches raises the fun bar immensely.

I do feel bad for the OP, and it seems as he's being piled on. There must be one person out there who agrees the distance should be reduced.

I feel the OP's pain as well as it can be very frustrating to want to place a cache and then have to either travel further to place it or wait for something near to open up. I don't agree with reducing the distance rule as you'd just end up with more shotgunned micros every 400' instead of every 528'.

1.7k · February 11, 2012

To be on the OP's side for a moment......

Sometimes you come across a fantastic location to put a real "challenge to find" (D4 -4.5) cache only to be stopped by several other caches. That's when it would be nice if the distance was less than 528.

It is at that point that I save the idea and try to figure out where else it would work, or just file away for future reference. Sometimes a cache gets archived and you can jump right in with your great idea and get it out there. In the meantime you wait.

9.3k · February 11, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so.

Your home turf isn't infected enough? You want to add to the problem?

You should know, several areas of Florida are similarily "infected".

Anyone got a sock puppet?

Yeah, I know. I have to drive through these areas on occassion.

I just make sure I have proper protection on, and wash thoroughly afterward.

Still, I always itch later...

And yes, I have a sock, but he hates Micro-Spew even more than I do.

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule...

Every time I see this frequently posted statement, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak revisited the rule and made it 0.25 miles instead of 0.10?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Wouldn't it be great if Groundspeak just ignored all this hype and left the rule alone?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Why am I in the forums and not out finding geocaches?"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "TOMORROW IS SATURDAY!!!"

Every time I see this commonly posted reponse, I think to myself, "Wow. It's Friday already?"

1.9k · February 11, 2012

In cities like DFW, it is getting increasingly harder to get the recomended 528 ft away from other caches in public parks and areas that caches can actually be placed. I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so. I also think that Geocaching volunteers should take the word "should" to mean an aproximation. Not an exact. Of course by over regulating the game you can also make it not fun any more.

i wish it was like that here. not having a car ive pretty much cached out everything that isn't a 4 hour bike ride.

February 15, 2012

I think the problem may indeed lie in the P & G. Though I do love being able to get my numbers up. I just keep thinking that there are areas that encourage geocaching, (Like city parks) When I go to a park and find that it is only big enough for two caches and they are both micros it really takes the fun out of the find. I just think that maybe in those areas that could be loosened up to make parks more of a target for caches to be hidden in. I also think it would help considerably for the CITO. I think every city park should be able to have at least two small or bigger caches Don't get me wrong I think micros have their place too. They can be fun in areas where other caches cannot go. Maybe it could be made where micros have to be 1/10 of a mile from another cache, and caches with content have to be 1/10 of a mile of another cache with content or something. I don't know, just thinking with my typing fingers.

Edited February 15, 2012 by tcdchameleon

February 15, 2012

I just keep thinking that there are areas that encourage geocaching, (Like city parks) When I go to a park and find that it is only big enough for two caches and they are both micros it really takes the fun out of the find. I just think that maybe in those areas that could be loosened up to make parks more of a target for caches to be hidden in.

Thanks for clarifying this. The most common reason I've seen for people wanting to loosen the rules generally goes along the "why can't I place a cache near my house - I really want too but it's full near me!" Yours is the first argument I've seen about quality. (At least if "bigger cache" == "higher quality".)

I think the reason people often hide micros in city parks, other than because micros are cheap, is because large caches in city parks are often muggle bait.

Perhaps it would be better if the distance between micros was increase, to something like 1/4 mile, but everything else was left alone? :anibad:

6.7k · February 15, 2012

I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so.

Your home turf isn't infected enough? You want to add to the problem?

I guess it just goes to show you how deeply P&G's are woven into the fabric of the game in the DFW Metroplex. You should know, several areas of Florida are similarily "infected".

I do feel bad for the OP, and it seems as he's being piled on. There must be one person out there who agrees the distance should be reduced. Anyone got a sock puppet?

I have just polled my sock puppets and they all agree. Been to DFW and the best recommendation we can come up with (me and my sock puppets) is move. Sorry, I know that isn't what you wanted to hear. But other than that just keep looking for those that you like and don't worry about adding new ones. It sounds like the area doesn't really need them.

15.3k · February 15, 2012

I think the reason people often hide micros in city parks, other than because micros are cheap, is because large caches in city parks are often muggle bait.

Yep. I've watched the cycle in a number of nearby suburban parks: larger caches keep getting muggled until someone hides a micro-cache, and that survives. After a few years, the only caches left in these parks are micro-caches. It isn't because the owners are cheap or lazy. It's because that's all that the location can support.

February 15, 2012

Hey, the 162m separation rule is awkward! Why not make it a round 200m or 150m. Only the USA uses feet and miles now (even the UK uses meters for short distances)... :drama:

(Seriously, though - it isn't broken, so don't try to fix it...)

7.9k · February 16, 2012

In cities like DFW, it is getting increasingly harder to get the recomended 528 ft away from other caches in public parks and areas that caches can actually be placed. I submit that maybe it is time to revisit that rule and make it down to four hundred or so. I also think that Geocaching volunteers should take the word "should" to mean an aproximation. Not an exact. Of course by over regulating the game you can also make it not fun any more.

i wish it was like that here. not having a car ive pretty much cached out everything that isn't a 4 hour bike ride.

Time for a five-hour bike ride.

1.9k · February 16, 2012

I will quote Knowschad... "Keep the area alive, not the cache."

in other words every 91 days remove the log and put a new one, archive old, copy/paste the listing into a new cache.

lather rinse repeat every 91 days.

February 16, 2012

Your complaint is that there are too many caches saturating your area.

So you want to saturate it even more? Seems like that's just adding to the problem.

As others have said, go for quality, not quantity.

February 17, 2012

There is another possible solution. Personally, I would like to see a time limit on caches. Any cache that has not received a favourite point must be removed after two years. (or 3 or 1 or 4) This would mean that approximately nine out of ten caches would have a limited life span. If a cache gets a favourite point, then the cache owner has the option of taking it down or leaving it. Just a thought. Turnover of caches rather than more caches.

I realize that people will complain about litter, but I think that is part of the cache owner's responsibility.... clean up after your cache.

February 17, 2012

Again though, when I take my kids out to geocache, lets face it an eight year old is not interested in a film canister with a piece of paper in it. And again I am not saying that micros do not have a place, I just have a hard time with a micro stuck in a bush that nobody but a geocacher is going to go into. What I am thinking is that maybe micros and caches of other sizes could be seperated. Anotherwords and this is even if you went to the 1/4 mile rule. Micros have to be a certain amount away from another micro. A content cache on the other hand if an area allowed for it could be right next to a micro, but still have to be a certain distance from a another content can. I am saying that maybe their should be a distinction. Again I love to take my kids to the parks to cache. DFW has some great ones too. And on the outskirts of just about all of them are woodsy areas great for caching. These are great areas for larger content caches. The problem is you will have a great hiding spot within the park for a micro too. If one is put in the center of the park it virtually kills the ability to put a content cache anywhere else in the park. I just think that maybe their could be a better solution. Also being that Geocache is such a big part of parks now, why not allow for more of them in the park, this just gives the park that many more visitors.

15.3k · February 17, 2012

Personally, I would like to see a time limit on caches. Any cache that has not received a favourite point must be removed after two years. (or 3 or 1 or 4)

So all I have to do is leave the container in place and create a new listing every 2 (or 3 or 1 or 4) years, and the clock resets... right?

A content cache on the other hand if an area allowed for it could be right next to a micro, but still have to be a certain distance from a another content can.

You do realize that cache owners can change the size listed for their caches, don't you? If they replace a small container with a micro (or vice versa), then they can update the listing. Should that affect the saturation guidelines? I don't think so.

New Rules

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment