New Rules

[+baloo&bd]

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.

 

This makes the incorrect assumption that favorite points are in some way remotely indicative of cache quality.

[+baloo&bd]

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.

 

Why? A micro is as valid a cache as any other and, quite frankly if you are one of the few who believe favorite points are any indicator, often get as many if not more points then the larger ones.

 

As to the comment about the 8 year old; 1. I would hate to think we are going to base a decision solely on what under 13 cachers think and 2. it is more a indictment of the 8 year old and their environment then that of the cache. After working with my boys as well as scouts ranging from 5 to 17, they find the challenge of the hunt and subsequent find more rewarding then some broken McJunk in the container.

[+tozainamboku]

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?

Of course the real issue may be the people who hide caches and then stop geocaching entirely a short time later. These people aren't going to "renew" their listing every year or two, so such a rule would result in a fair number of caches being archived. My guess is that this would result in the turnover that SniggleOgSnoet anticipates and there would be more places to hide new caches. Of course there will be a lot more abandoned caches littering the area as well and that will likely cause a different problem.

 

So long as there seems to be a cache to find, it seems reviewers are not likely to archive a physical geocache. However, once the cache goes missing, these caches seem to be archived pretty quickly so long as some reports a Needs Archive. Which is another solution that I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned. If there's a micro blocking your good spot, maybe you can help that cache disappear, and once it has gotten a few DNFs then post an Needs Archive.

 

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.

Hey that's like the solution my kids came up with when I wouldn't let them have ice cream because it was too close to dinner time. They said that ice cream should be counted separately from other meals. So they shouldn't eat ice cream if they ate ice too recently, but it would be okay to have ice cream right before dinner so long as there was a sufficient gap from other ice cream.

[+baloo&bd]

Hey that's like the solution my kids came up with when I wouldn't let them have ice cream because it was too close to dinner time. They said that ice cream should be counted separately from other meals. So they shouldn't eat ice cream if they ate ice too recently, but it would be okay to have ice cream right before dinner so long as there was a sufficient gap from other ice cream.

 

I like ice cream.

[+tcdchameleons]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to? I am just pointing out that maybe in city parks (Only city parks) The spacing rule could be laxed a little bit. This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment. My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do. My youngest enjoys it too. Just a thought. When it comes to all other areas leave it absolutely alone.

[+Chokecherry]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to? I am just pointing out that maybe in city parks (Only city parks) The spacing rule could be laxed a little bit. This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment. My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do. My youngest enjoys it too. Just a thought. When it comes to all other areas leave it absolutely alone.

 

I've brought a pack of young boys geocaching before honestly with the proper supervision and because they were under control I was able to bring them to all my normal cache haunts. That included urban and more wilderness oriented. Didn't have a problem. Saturation guidelines were not an issue. We didn't need 50 caches in an area were 1 did just fine showing us the area. In fact that pack of children would have found that profoundly boring because like adults they were there for the journey part not just find.

[PeterJull]

I looked at 2 locations which shouldn't fall foul of the rule but do. One was back from the top of a 500ft high vertical cliff and the other near the bottom. Distance between the two well over the 528ft but not horizontally even though the only practical route between the two is nearly a mile. Who still says there's no place for exceptions?

[+Bamilbis]

I looked at 2 locations which shouldn't fall foul of the rule but do. One was back from the top of a 500ft high vertical cliff and the other near the bottom. Distance between the two well over the 528ft but not horizontally even though the only practical route between the two is nearly a mile. Who still says there's no place for exceptions?

 

That problem will be addressed when Lat / Long have elevation information.

[GOF and Bacall]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to? I am just pointing out that maybe in city parks (Only city parks) The spacing rule could be laxed a little bit. This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment. My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do. My youngest enjoys it too. Just a thought. When it comes to all other areas leave it absolutely alone.

 

Both.

[+Totem Clan]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to? I am just pointing out that maybe in city parks (Only city parks) The spacing rule could be laxed a little bit. This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment. My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do. My youngest enjoys it too. Just a thought. When it comes to all other areas leave it absolutely alone.

 

Both.

+1

 

If I could only go to one, I'de pick the one with the cache that sounds like the best. The number of caches would have nothing to do with it.

[GOF and Bacall]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to? I am just pointing out that maybe in city parks (Only city parks) The spacing rule could be laxed a little bit. This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment. My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do. My youngest enjoys it too. Just a thought. When it comes to all other areas leave it absolutely alone.

 

Both.

+1

 

If I could only go to one, I'de pick the one with the cache that sounds like the best. The number of caches would have nothing to do with it.

 

Yup. There is always next weekend for the other park.

[+niraD]

Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it?

I too will visit both. But I'll probably visit the one with more caches more often. (I don't always clear out a park the first time I visit.)

 

FWIW, increasing the cache density in city parks will increase the geocaching traffic in those parks, which will draw more attention to all the caches in those parks, which will decrease the longevity of all the caches in those parks. Beware of unintended consequences.

 

I've brought a pack of young boys geocaching before honestly with the proper supervision and because they were under control I was able to bring them to all my normal cache haunts. That included urban and more wilderness oriented. Didn't have a problem. Saturation guidelines were not an issue. We didn't need 50 caches in an area were 1 did just fine showing us the area. In fact that pack of children would have found that profoundly boring because like adults they were there for the journey part not just find.

Frankly, when I've taken kids geocaching, I've made a point of not taking them to the caches in the neighborhood parks. I've made a point of taking them on a hike in one of the area's open spaces. The trip was much more enjoyable for everyone involved, and the neighborhood caches were spared the excess attention that would shorten their lifespans.

[+Markwell]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to?

I would only go to the park with more caches if I were concerned about increasing my find count in some pseudo-competition. There are cachers that are really into their numbers.

 

I am not one of those cachers.

 

I am just pointing out that maybe in city parks (Only city parks) The spacing rule could be laxed a little bit.

I have yet to see a compelling argument for this.

 

This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment.

A couple of years ago, I took my 3 year old and 7 year son (now 12 and 16) on a five mile hike in the woods to find a treasure box. Never had a complaint from either one.

 

My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do.

Stop that.

 

You cannot speak for everyone else. Not everyone is into caching for the numbers. Heck, I'd be happy if the system kept the list of finds private and only accessible to me. The only reason I even log my cache finds on the site is to eliminate them from my queries and to be able to mark "favorites".

[+Chokecherry]

Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it?

I too will visit both. But I'll probably visit the one with more caches more often. (I don't always clear out a park the first time I visit.)

 

FWIW, increasing the cache density in city parks will increase the geocaching traffic in those parks, which will draw more attention to all the caches in those parks, which will decrease the longevity of all the caches in those parks. Beware of unintended consequences.

 

I've brought a pack of young boys geocaching before honestly with the proper supervision and because they were under control I was able to bring them to all my normal cache haunts. That included urban and more wilderness oriented. Didn't have a problem. Saturation guidelines were not an issue. We didn't need 50 caches in an area were 1 did just fine showing us the area. In fact that pack of children would have found that profoundly boring because like adults they were there for the journey part not just find.

Frankly, when I've taken kids geocaching, I've made a point of not taking them to the caches in the neighborhood parks. I've made a point of taking them on a hike in one of the area's open spaces. The trip was much more enjoyable for everyone involved, and the neighborhood caches were spared the excess attention that would shorten their lifespans.

 

I think my trip with the kids we only ended up in one parkish area. And it wasn't even a "park" it just happened to be a place that was taken over by some disc golf people. They really enjoyed just seeing these different places and telling their stories about stuff. Didn't matter that we didn't find toys for them to take home or a lot of things in general. They just out and out enjoyed their trip and getting out of the house and wandering around for awhile.

[+Shop99er]

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

 

Regarding the OP's issue...That's not saturation...that's flooding!!!!

 

Holy crud, you can barely spit in that town without hitting a cache!!

[+Shop99er]

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.

 

Mine's full of saltwater from my 5 mile hike up Dungeness Spit, so it would crunch.

[+Shop99er]

Ok forget about caching in any environment outside of city parks. Are you as a geocacher more likely to vist a city part that has more caches in it or one that has less caches in it? Lets say that you know nothing more about the caches than there are more in this park than this park. Which one do you go to?

 

I would go look for the cache(s) that sounded like the most fun, regardless of what park it sent me to.

 

This way kids can get more caches in a safe environment.

And there is some reason to think a city park is particularly safer than any other park?

 

My oldest uses his geomate and looks at his count just like the rest of you do.

What Geomate?

 

Do not presume to compare everyone to your children. I for one, find that a tad insulting.

 

[eedit--speelng and stuf]

Edited February 23, 2012 by Shop99er

[+tcdchameleons]

Geomate http://mygeomate.com/ not a bad little toy if I do say so myself. Wish it had a few more features, but works pretty well for what it does.

[+tcdchameleons]

Oh, and believe me I do not compare my children to everyone else. I, like most parents, put him way above the rest of yours.

[+Planet]

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.

 

I'm sorry, but I think this is a terrible idea. I have built up over 100 favorite points. I just don't use, or have not yet started to use, the favorite system. I think I favorited one or two caches in the beginning, but it would take me too long to go through all the caches I've found to start applying favorite points to them. I would use the favorite points on some of the archived caches. I have caches that have been out for 10 years that people like, but have not necessarily added points to, because they precede the favorite system, and who else is going to go through all of their past finds to favorite them now? So you now want me to archive my oldest caches, because they aren't graded?

No. A resounding no. You can't make me, and I won't. They still get visits, and they still get good logs.

This is not a good idea.