Jump to content

Saturation of caches

Edgeways

By Edgeways
in Website

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Edgeways

Edgeways

Posted
Posted

Perhaps this has been addressed before, but I think in some geographical areas there is a saturation point being reached that quickly reduces outings to the easiest cache to reach. I wouldn't mind seeing a limit placed on how close caches can be to one another (5 miles? 10 miles?). I recently placed a cache that required people to actually spend more then 10 mins walking to get to it. Then the next day another cache springs up in the same area and it is little more then a drive up and look around for 15 or so mins then drive off. I acknowledge that there is a need for these and that most caches are going to be easy to get to, however I think a little more placement regulation would enhance the overall effort

To anticipate some replies; I know we choose where to go when caching and we certainly don't have to go for the multitude of car caches, but people are lazy and if you hand it to us most people will go for the easy rather then the less easy.

Link to comment
parkrrrr

+parkrrrr

Posted
Posted

I disagree. I think most people will go for both. Eventually, all of the drive-by caches will be exhausted, and all that's left on your front page will be harder ones. Then, if you haven't already done them, you'll do those because they're the easiest thing left. If a cacher gives up before he gets to that point, I probably didn't want him finding my cache anyway.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment
genophylus

+genophylus

Posted
Posted

Personally, I enjoy finding two or three in close proximity. A good walk or part of a day spent getting to a more remote cache makes for a good time, yet an easier cache nearby makes the area more enticing as I plan my outing. The better descriptions of some caches and accurate rating help in this.

Link to comment
Harrald

+Harrald

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

I disagree. I think most people will go for both. Eventually, all of the drive-by caches will be exhausted, and all that's left on your front page will be harder ones.

<

 

I can attest to this. I only have 8 caches left on my second page and they are at the least 2/2. In fact there are no caches with a one on either side within 10 miles of me.

 

The 1 terrain caches I go with my daughter, 2’s with my wife and anything higher with my son or alone.

 

So if there can’t be to many caches in an area. We can use them all. It sorta opens the game up to everyone no matter what shape they are in or their ability (disability).

 

icon_smile.gif

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment
Harrald

+Harrald

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

I disagree. I think most people will go for both. Eventually, all of the drive-by caches will be exhausted, and all that's left on your front page will be harder ones.

<

 

I can attest to this. I only have 8 caches left on my second page and they are at the least 2/2. In fact there are no caches with a one on either side within 10 miles of me.

 

The 1 terrain caches I go with my daughter, 2’s with my wife and anything higher with my son or alone.

 

So if there can’t be to many caches in an area. We can use them all. It sorta opens the game up to everyone no matter what shape they are in or their ability (disability).

 

icon_smile.gif

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment
cachew nut

+cachew nut

Posted
Posted

At least for me, I would not mind. I have essentially logged what's available in my area. With the exception of one or two that I've been saving for a particular time, the nearest caches are over 15 miles away. I'd welcome more real caches, as opposed to virtual ones, which are ok too but not as good as the real thing. Some of the newer ones in my area, as well as some older ones, as well as a couple of my own have falled victim to vandals. While I can't tell for sure, this could be a reason for the lack of new caches in my area.

 

[This message was edited by cachew nut on June 05, 2002 at 09:40 AM.]

Link to comment
scooterj

scooterj

Posted
Posted

I live in in area with a pretty high cache density. A park across the street from me has 3 caches, another nearby park has 4, and another nearby park has 6. Yet none of these places feel like they are crowded in. Instead the multiple caches in each park seem to complement each other. A lot of people take advantage of the fact that they can go to one place and make a big circuit to pick up a bunch of finds.

Link to comment
lostinjersey

+lostinjersey

Posted
Posted

If we're talking about a decent sized park, as if a forest, having several isn't a big deal. If on the other hand the "park" is barely a few acres, well then no, there really shouldnt be more then one or two in it. I personally feel that no caches should be closer then a 10-15 minute walk. That's my yardstick. There are exceptions of course, but that's my general rule. And placing within 500 feet? dont even get me started.

 

I will say, however that there shouldn't be any rules i.e. regulations on the subject. Thats the last thing we need are rules on caches. Guidelines, yes. rules, no.

 

WUHOO TEAMGWHO!

Link to comment
bigredmed

+bigredmed

Posted
Posted

Some of us have goofy work schedules and can't spend a day driving to a place, then hiking for three hours to find the cache, then hike for three hours back to the car. I like having some that I can go to on the way home. Plus with young nieces and nephews, its nice to have some that are easy, so that the little ones can go.

Link to comment
KD7MXI

+KD7MXI

Posted
Posted

commen sence says too avoid trouble with the fbi-atf-etc avoid populated areas!!!

 

cities and towns are so full of peaple that i refuse too do them!!!

 

i go for the ones in the country!!!

 

GEOCACHING --- It isn't about the treasur --- It is about the find and the getting there!!!

Link to comment
leatherman

+leatherman

Posted
Posted

Some parks are wonderful and vast. I would return to them no matter how many were hidden there.

 

Dissclaimer:

This is only an opinion. This is a compillation of experiences with three specific GPSr units. These experiences may or maynot add or detract from the specific capabilities of other units of the same makes or models. Any experiances or opinions by this user may or maynot support or conflict with the experiances or opinions of other users, and will not be held in debate.

This is only an opinion.

 

Preperation, the first law to survival.

39197_400.jpg

Link to comment
Prime Suspect

+Prime Suspect

Posted
Posted

I know of one area that has 3 caches within 100 feet of each other (although one has been turned into a virtual.) That said, when I go out caching, I plot all the ones I haven't found yet within a 30 mile area on Street Atlas, and look for good clusters. Gas prices are high enough, and I'd rather keep the driving to a minimum.

 

And when placing a cache, it's not always possible to know if there's another cache nearby. One the trio of caches I referred to above was a multi-cache, and its starting coordinates were miles away from where the actual cache was.

 

PS_sig.gif

Link to comment
LarsThorwald

+LarsThorwald

Posted
Posted

Give me a break. 5-10 miles apart?

 

I agree. Why do people constantly seek more regulations? Who does it hurt if there are zero or three caches close to another? I've found close to 80 caches and have run into other cachers exactly two times. Let's stop worrying about rules and just keep having fun!

 

Charlie

 

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

Link to comment
RAD Dad

+RAD Dad

Posted
Posted

I like lots of caches close together. I don't think a cache is too close to another unless you are talking less than 1/10 of a mile. If a park is large, a couple caches in the same park, but different areas, would be just fine with me....means that in one stop myself and my kids can get two or more caches before having to load back up in the vehical to go hunt for more.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Link to comment
Genius Loci

+Genius Loci

Posted
Posted

The idea of putting minimum distance separators between caches doesn't seem to take into account one of the most important aspects of geocaching - the terrain!

 

When I tell my friends about geocaching, they often say - what's the big deal? You've got a GPS and coordinates - an idiot could get there! I guess everyone on this board knows why that’s not (always) true, and it has a lot to do with - terrain.

 

Maybe some geocachers have never had the pleasure(?) of trying for a cache that's on the OTHER side of the river. Yes, it's real close, but...

 

Also, I'm a flatlander but it does occur to me that vertical differentiation could make a BIG difference. 5 or 10 miles might feel close here in Illinois, but in some of the places I've been, I've had to go farther than that just to get up or down enough to travel the straight line distance of a few hundred feet.

 

As a matter of fact, I savor the cache that LOOKS real close, but then when you actually gotta GET there, it's another story.

 

- Genius Loci

 

“the guardian diety of a place”

Link to comment
Alan2

+Alan2

Posted
Posted

Central PArk in Manhattan, NYC has about 15 traditional and virtual caches in an area 1/2 by 2 1/2 miles. My wife and I spent about two hours a couple of weekends ago walking around to three ( 2 traditionals and one virtual - couldn't find one of them). We parked our car off of Fifth Avenue and walked to the park (a rare experience I assure you). What a nice day!

 

Other days we spent all day driving over a hundred miles to hit two or three caches.

 

Both experiences were fun; why create rules?

 

Also, in a radius of 100 miles and about 800 caches in my people crowded area breaks out to about one per 40 square miles - not exactly cache over-population!

 

Alan

Link to comment
georgeandmary

+georgeandmary

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Edgeways:

Perhaps this has been addressed before, but I think in some geographical areas there is a saturation point being reached that quickly reduces outings to the easiest cache to reach. I wouldn't mind seeing a limit placed on how close caches can be to one another (5 miles? 10 miles?). I recently placed a cache that required people to actually spend more then 10 mins walking to get to it. Then the next day another cache springs up in the same area and it is little more then a drive up and look around for 15 or so mins then drive off. I acknowledge that there is a need for these and that most caches are going to be easy to get to, however I think a little more placement regulation would enhance the overall effort

To anticipate some replies; I know we choose where to go when caching and we certainly don't have to go for the multitude of car caches, but people are lazy and if you hand it to us most people will go for the easy rather then the less easy.

 

While the caches that are quicker to get to will get hit more often, the harder to get to caches will be gotten also.

 

I just did 5 caches the circle a small mountain lake. The first was a virtual right where you park. But I did not stop and turn around go home. The other 4 required a 4 mile hike around a rocky trail. The caches had only been posted for 2 days and I thought I'd be FTF for all of them. Turns out, I was a day late. The only FTF I got was the one cache the other cacher missed. It's ok. I missed one out of the 5 too.

 

I'm actually more likely to grab a longer hike cache if I can combine it with a few easy to get caches

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

Link to comment
georgeandmary

+georgeandmary

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by kd7mxi:

commen sence says too avoid trouble with the fbi-atf-etc avoid populated areas!!!

 

cities and towns are so full of peaple that i refuse too do them!!!

 

i go for the ones in the country!!!

 

GEOCACHING --- It isn't about the treasur --- It is about the find and the getting there!!!

 

You're right, you should avoid as many people as possible.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

Link to comment
Sun Chasers

+Sun Chasers

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by kd7mxi:

commen sence says too avoid trouble with the fbi-atf-etc avoid populated areas!!!

 

cities and towns are so full of peaple that i refuse too do them!!!

 

i go for the ones in the country!!!

 

This is a great point, but also you must use common sense. I have 37 caches within 20 miles of me. Most of the ones within the city limits are microcaches which will never be considered dangerous. Larger ones are located in suburban parks and use clear containers so "bomb squads" can quickly identify the contents.

 

As far as saturation is concerned, I agree with scooterj,

quote:
I live in in area with a pretty high cache density. A park across the street from me has 3 caches, another nearby park has 4, and another nearby park has 6. Yet none of these places feel like they are crowded in. Instead the multiple caches in each park seem to complement each other. A lot of people take advantage of the fact that they can go to one place and make a big circuit to pick up a bunch of finds

In fact I often get frustrated by running out of local caches, so I make my own. I made my first cache way out in the boonies with no cache within 10 miles of it mostly because I felt there were lots of uncached areas, and it seemed the people living out there were getting the short end of the stick. On the other hand, my last cache is smack in the middle of the city and it has 4 microcaches within a mile of it. Yet I keep seeing more and more great locations to put another. Cities have more geocachers living there and should have more caches.

 

There is also a park near me that has 3 caches in it, two of which are less than 100 yards apart, yet they are multicaches and you will have to walk a good 1/2 mile from the first before finding the second just because of the way the clues lead you. It's still very fun and rewarding. This I believe is one of the benefits of multicaches. They allow you to build an adventure or hunt even in crowded areas. I agree that several tight grouped traditional caches could seem a bit cheap and less rewarding, but I don't agree that regulation is the answer - creativity is.

 

[This message was edited by Legal Tender Cache on June 06, 2002 at 06:39 AM.]

Link to comment
AlphaOp

AlphaOp

Posted
Posted

A rule of thumb that I use is that in "cache-saturated areas" it should take at least 15 minutes of walking or hiking to get from one cache to another. Also, I like to find new areas where a cache could be hidden- a place someone hasn't thought of before. But some areas, like parks and forests, are big enough for even many caches to co-exist.

 

CODENAME: ALPHA OPERATOR

daedalus://govlink/secure/majestic/12.12.12/ops/throne/AO

MAJESTIC-12: THRONE G6 LEVEL AGENT

http://www.planetdeusex.com

Link to comment
cactus8

+cactus8

Posted
Posted

I had to rethink the placement of a cache to an easier location as I had gotten stuck hard in the sand trying for the original location I'd picked out. Thanks to several 4 wheel drive vehicles my bones aren't bleaching in the desert, and my pickup stripped bare. Since I didn't want anyone else to go thru that nightmare I choose a less dangerous cache location, and I'm sure some will say it was too easy to find. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

[This message was edited by CACTUS8 on June 23, 2002 at 04:20 PM.]

Link to comment
cactus8

+cactus8

Posted
Posted

I had to rethink the placement of a cache to an easier location as I had gotten stuck hard in the sand trying for the original location I'd picked out. Thanks to several 4 wheel drive vehicles my bones aren't bleaching in the desert, and my pickup stripped bare. Since I didn't want anyone else to go thru that nightmare I choose a less dangerous cache location, and I'm sure some will say it was too easy to find. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

[This message was edited by CACTUS8 on June 23, 2002 at 04:20 PM.]

Link to comment
majicman

+majicman

Posted
Posted

Sometimes, I like to place 5 caches together (inside of each other.)

 

I'll start with a 50 gallon drum, and have some power tools, car batteries, electric jeep winches and big stuff like that in it. Along with all of that is another clearly labeled geocache 50mm ammo can (inside the 55 gallon drum.)

 

Now if they open the ammo can, viola, another cache count. And it has some medium sized booty-nuggets in it, you know, threee or four GPS units, rechargable batteries and chargers, digital cameras, etc. BUT, also inside of the 50cal ammo can is a medium sized tupperware container (Again, clearly marked as a separate cache!) And in it are some smaller items like watches and rings and jewlery and WG 20$ bills and such. You guessed it! There is also a decon kit in the tupperware box, and it is a completely separate cache count. In it are rare coins and gold ingots and some rare stamps, AND, a final film canister 5th Internal cache! Unfortunately, the film canister is so small, I usually just put loose diamonds and rubies in it.... sometimes a saphire or two.)

 

Now, to claim all five caches within a cache, you just have to sign each of the log book/sheets and it all counts!

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Link to comment
majicman

+majicman

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

Majicman-

 

You should establish a virtual inside the film canister.

 

Thanks but no thanks!

 

Whatdayawantmetodo, give them extra finds TOO easily! icon_biggrin.gif

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Link to comment
majicman

+majicman

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

Majicman-

 

You should establish a virtual inside the film canister.

 

Thanks but no thanks!

 

Whatdayawantmetodo, give them extra finds TOO easily! icon_biggrin.gif

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Link to comment
majicman

+majicman

Posted
Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Ah, the Troyka Cache.

 

How about a locationless cache for caches nested inside other caches?

 

Now you're just gittin' plain dang silly!

 

--majicman

 

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...