Cache Concentration Guidlines

[+robertr337]

I think that caches should be changed to be required to only be 263 Ft. Apart, or .05 Miles. In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches, and yet still new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city. It would be very nice if this change could be made.

[+Lil Devil]

You're absolutely right! It *is* time for a change. From now forward, caches should not be closer than 1/4 mile, or 1,320 feet, or 402 meters.

 

That should cut down on the lame micros scattered around our urban spaces.

[+Chokecherry]

I think that caches should be changed to be required to only be 263 Ft. Apart, or .05 Miles. In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches, and yet still new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city. It would be very nice if this change could be made.

 

I'd be more than happy if the guidelines were changed to a half mile apart. There's lots of wilderness in Wisconsin that could use a cache and that there would be absolutely no trouble with saturation.

[+Southern_Comfort]

Wow, there is a cache on just about every block

[+DragonsWest]

1 per county (all mine get grandfathered, though) :anitongue: :anitongue:

[jholly]

I think that caches should be changed to be required to only be 263 Ft. Apart, or .05 Miles. In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches, and yet still new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city. It would be very nice if this change could be made.

What are you talking about? Out by Mud lake there is nothing but emptiness. North of town by Boom Lake nothing but emptiness. So many places, so few ammo cans. Of course if all you want to do is stick a 35mm film can under a skirt you might find it a bit crowded. Get some ammo cans, Lock-n-Locks, Costco nut jars or some Skippy peanut butter jars and put out some real caches.

[+Walts Hunting]

Welcome to the forums with your first post.

 

This has been brought up many many many times and you are not going to get any support here. The general opinion on this forum has been for the vast majority to suggest an increase (as you can see by the previous posts) in cache distance. Just because an area is full does not mean you need more.

 

when the area is full will you want to cut it .025 and where does it stop.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Walts Hunting

[+DanOCan]

I think that caches should be changed to be required to only be 263 Ft. Apart, or .05 Miles. In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches, and yet still new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city. It would be very nice if this change could be made.

 

Whenever this topic comes up in the forum it seems a majority of the people are either content with the existing guideline or would actually like to see it increased to reduce the density of caches.

 

New cachers need to be aware that all caches have a lifecycle and eventually a spot will open up as caches are archived. The key is to be ready to pounce when that space opens up.

 

I believe caches should exist because there is an interesting location or experience you want to share and not "just because". There aren't that many interesting places 161m apart from each other.

[+StarBrand]

I thinking moving it to .25 miles would vastly increase the number of caches that I personally would like to find.

 

Not every spot "needs" a cache just because it is .1 miles from any others.

[+DragonsWest]

I thinking moving it to .25 miles would vastly increase the number of caches that I personally would like to find.

 

Not every spot "needs" a cache just because it is .1 miles from any others.

 

Although the citizens of a certain small Nevada town may beg to differ with you. The story of how they went to bat for the ET Highway trail is remarkable -- when the original was created a sleepy little (read: Dead) town was suddenly overrun with geocachers buying food, staying the night, buying gaz, getting stuff in whatever store was in town, etc. and the closure of the trail sent their sudden windfall into tailspin, so they lobbied for its return. Perhaps in urban environments?

[+lamoracke]

agree, I do think the majority of the forum users here will offer no sympathy on the 0.1 mile saturation rule and decreasing the value. As some have said, there have been a number of forum topics on this in recent memory and I am not even a forum long timer veteran. I would personally agree that shortening the distance is not worth doing. There are already a huge number of caches, I do not believe I want more in a certain already concentrated area, I want better ones.

 

to the above post, I do not think one hotel in the E.T. highway which already had a buttload of caches .1 miles apart needed "more" caches per se, but they wanted the ones they had, back.

Edited March 19, 2012 by lamoracke

[+Flintstone5611]

For as much as there are challenges to the saturation guideline, i think that when we are pressed to look harder or search farther then you end up with a better product than if you are just given every opportunity.

[+SwineFlew]

You're absolutely right! It *is* time for a change. From now forward, caches should not be closer than 1/4 mile, or 1,320 feet, or 402 meters.

 

That should cut down on the lame micros scattered around our urban spaces.

Why I smell sarcasm here?

[+SwineFlew]

New powertrail in Oregon... Yep, you will have to walk most of them. Just looking at it make my head spin!

 

http://coord.info/GC3DBY4

 

For the laugh, read the logs.

[Clan Riffster]

I'd like to change the concentration guidelines for Geocaches

Me too! Like ChokeCherry, my vote would be for 1/2 mile apart.

 

Although the citizens of a certain small Nevada town may beg to differ with you.

Both of them?

Hopefully Groundspeak won't let the fate of one failing inn set policy across the globe.

 

In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches

Uh... How do you figure?

 

...new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city

If you can convince the noobs to walk more than 10' from their minivans, there are gobs of hiding spots.

[+lamoracke]

New powertrail in Oregon... Yep, you will have to walk most of them. Just looking at it make my head spin!

 

http://coord.info/GC3DBY4

 

For the laugh, read the logs.

 

I did the challenge caches on that road, its so near all those military bases, am surprised all that room was available to make all those caches.

 

I also see that the challenge power trail has increased a bit more since I was there.

[knowschad]

In a wonderful northwoods town like Rhinelander, why on earth would you concentrate on urban caches? Get out in the woods that are so abundant around you!

[+jellis]

I think that caches should be changed to be required to only be 263 Ft. Apart, or .05 Miles. In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches, and yet still new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city. It would be very nice if this change could be made.

What are you talking about? Out by Mud lake there is nothing but emptiness. North of town by Boom Lake nothing but emptiness. So many places, so few ammo cans. Of course if all you want to do is stick a 35mm film can under a skirt you might find it a bit crowded. Get some ammo cans, Lock-n-Locks, Costco nut jars or some Skippy peanut butter jars and put out some real caches.

Maybe he's planning a power trail and needs more space.

 

BTW these are the CO's caches

Edited March 20, 2012 by jellis

[+Colonial Cats]

Leave well enough alone. 528 feet works out just fine.

[+niraD]

The 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".

 

If you can't find a spot that is further than 528ft/161m from existing caches, then perhaps there are already enough caches in that particular area. Perhaps it would be better to seek out new places to hide caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

In a wonderful northwoods town like Rhinelander, why on earth would you concentrate on urban caches? Get out in the woods that are so abundant around you!

 

Interesting small City. You have abundant water resources, and probably a lot of cheese. What do I know, I've been to Ft. McCoy 3 or 4 times. Wisconsin is a much hillier State than most people think. At least down there, it is.

 

This is a tough crowd around here, as you've probably seen already. There have been dozens, maybe even hundreds of "decrease the distance" threads over the years. They never go over very well, so don't get frustrated with the replies. I'm of the opinion a decrease in the distance is pretty much never going to happen. People around here joke about increasing it, but I don't think that's going to happen either. As a matter of fact, it's not even funny any more when it comes up in these threads, stop it people.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Have you looked at the link in my signature to determine the appropriate time to post this topic?

[+briansnat]

You're absolutely right! It *is* time for a change. From now forward, caches should not be closer than 1/4 mile, or 1,320 feet, or 402 meters.

 

That should cut down on the lame micros scattered around our urban spaces.

 

I'm on board with that.

[+tozainamboku]

There is no doubt that as cell phones have opened the sport to those whose only reliable transportation is walking or bicycling from their house, a newbie is likely to find fewer places to hide a cache than once was the case. The general consensus is that if you live in an area where there is cache every 528 ft already you don't need to hide more caches.

 

However, I can understand that someone who can only go a limited distance from home without asking their parents to drive them someplace, may eventually find all the nearby caches and want to hide some more. My suggestion is to pay attention to the nearby caches that need maintenance, especially those caches that have gone missing, and where the cache owner does not seem to be doing maintenance. On these caches you can post a Needs Archive, and once archived, you can run out and place a new cache in the freed up area. One problem with this are the cachers who think they are helping out by leaving a throw down replacement on behalf of the absentee owner. You need convince these people that it would be better for the sport if they allowed these caches to be archived so that newbies could have a chance to hide caches.

 

Sometimes newbies are unaware that urban caches tend to have short life spans (except in areas where leaving throw down replacement has become common). Patience, and helping the reviewers by posting Needs Archive to speed up the process, goes a long way to ensuring that those who want to hide a cache can have the opportunity to do so. TPTB are not going to change the guidelines to create more opportunity.

Edited March 20, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Castle Mischief]

I thinking moving it to .25 miles would vastly increase the number of caches that I personally would like to find.

 

Not every spot "needs" a cache just because it is .1 miles from any others.

 

Although the citizens of a certain small Nevada town may beg to differ with you. The story of how they went to bat for the ET Highway trail is remarkable -- when the original was created a sleepy little (read: Dead) town was suddenly overrun with geocachers buying food, staying the night, buying gaz, getting stuff in whatever store was in town, etc. and the closure of the trail sent their sudden windfall into tailspin, so they lobbied for its return. Perhaps in urban environments?

 

ALL HAIL THE COMMING OF THE DETROIT RENEWAL POWERTRAIL!!!!!!!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

New powertrail in Oregon... Yep, you will have to walk most of them. Just looking at it make my head spin!

 

http://coord.info/GC3DBY4

 

For the laugh, read the logs.

 

I did the challenge caches on that road, its so near all those military bases, am surprised all that room was available to make all those caches.

 

I also see that the challenge power trail has increased a bit more since I was there.

 

I also noticed a couple of "challenges" that, to me, looked to be the definitive definition of an ALR.

 

"To log this cache you will need to write a log of at least 100 words."

[+uxorious]

You're absolutely right! It *is* time for a change. From now forward, caches should not be closer than 1/4 mile, or 1,320 feet, or 402 meters.

 

That should cut down on the lame micros scattered around our urban spaces.

 

The current 580 feet is just fine, we do not need less, nor more.

 

Anyone who thinks more distance would cut down on lame micros is just fooling themselves. There would be fewer lame micros, but there would also be fewer good caches. Those that hide lame caches would continue to do so, and those that hide good ones will continue to do so.

 

There are caches out there that lead to a very interesting spot, and are good hides, that are close to the 580 ft. to other equally great spots. Do we really want to get rid of them, just so we can be too lazy to check out what we are going after?

 

True there would be fewer micros scattered haphazardly around the urban area. But if you don't like lamp post caches, or guardrail caches, just don't do them. Easy isn't it?

[+NanCycle]

 

 

The current 580 feet is just fine,

 

Huh? When did it change from 528 ft?

[+uxorious]

 

 

The current 580 feet is just fine,

 

Huh? When did it change from 528 ft?

 

When I got old enough to have a senior moment. Of course 528 is better than 580.

[+The Blorenges]

Whilst I also agree with the opinions expressed re the proximity guideline, I am starting to feel just a smidgen of sympathy for the OP robertr on his first visit to these forums!

 

MrsB

[+NanCycle]

Whilst I also agree with the opinions expressed re the proximity guideline, I am starting to feel just a smidgen of sympathy for the OP robertr on his first visit to these forums!

 

MrsB

 

COMPLETELY OFF THE CURRENT TOPIC:

 

MrsB>

 

Someone should tell robertr not to post the tracking numbers of his trackables on his profile page. I nominate you, since you always say things more nicely than I do.

 

Nancy

[AZcachemeister]

I believe caches should exist because there is an interesting location or experience you want to share and not "just because". There aren't that many interesting places 161m apart from each other.

 

Right-on brutha!

 

I don't think there was ever a worthy cache whose listing starts:

 

I noticed there wasn't a cache within 0.1 miles, so I decided to place one.

 

I appreciate all the extra smilies, but do you want to eat rice-cakes day-in and day-out, or would you like something a little more substantial?

[+Christopher geertsen]

I believe this should be lowered from 528 ft. It is really hard for me to know exactly where to place a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache. I also believe that they should make a mapping computer program that shows you where you can put a cache. For example put a green shaded area for where you can still put a cache. I am not saying lower the guideline ft a lot I am just saying make it easier for us to know exactly where to place a cache. I also believe that in the distant future there will be no where to put a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache. Than when this happened the guideline will half to be lowered from 528 ft.

[+Chokecherry]

I see a distant future where maybe in an urban area there won't be a place to put a cache. But I look at the wide open expanses rurally where I tend to cache and see miles after miles of places one could hike to place caches if their heart desires.

[+niraD]

I also believe that they should make a mapping computer program that shows you where you can put a cache. For example put a green shaded area for where you can still put a cache.

If the only way to find a spot that is 528ft/161m from the nearest cache is to look for holes in a saturation map, then perhaps there are already enough caches in that particular area. Perhaps it would be better to seek out new places to hide caches, places that aren't already so saturated.

[+Walts Hunting]

I believe this should be lowered from 528 ft. It is really hard for me to know exactly where to place a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache. I also believe that they should make a mapping computer program that shows you where you can put a cache. For example put a green shaded area for where you can still put a cache. I am not saying lower the guideline ft a lot I am just saying make it easier for us to know exactly where to place a cache. I also believe that in the distant future there will be no where to put a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache. Than when this happened the guideline will half to be lowered from 528 ft.

 

There are several programs that will do that including GSAK, Mapsource, Basecamp, Google Earth and who knows how many others. However, you will run into the hidden waypoints from a multi or unknown cache though which will foul up what you think is a open area. Those cannot be accounted for except by finding the multis and unknowns in your area.

 

If you don't want to do that load the caches from the area you are interested in and walk around until they closest one is .l1 away and you are home free except for the above caveat.

 

It is not that hard to find where the open spot is.

[+Lil Devil]

Interesting. Whenever I've hidden a cache, it's because I found a really cool spot I want to bring people to.

 

I would never hide a cache just because it's an open spot 528 feet from any other cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

You could always create an offset multi with a virtual first stage which would not be subject to the 528' rule.

 

Virtual waypoints in puzzles and multi-caches, should be coded as "question to answer" or "reference point" -- in which case the virtual waypoints can be closer than 528 feet from another cache and do not block other physical placements.

[+Mongo1965]

While I have not actually talk with robertr337 about his view on distance I did get to meet him at a saint pattys day event. Real nice kid and there lays the problem. We have been getting some new cachers here in town and some of them are younger so its hard for them to get out in the woods. While I prefer my long hikes out in the woods I can understand why robertr337 or any of our younger cachers would like to place there caches in town. They just want to be able to enjoy the fun of owning and maintain there own cache with out having to rely on parents to drive them around.

 

I did not personally talk to his parents so not sure how they feel about heading out for hikes in the woods or having some old fart like me taking him with me next time I go out.

 

robertr337 don't let these post get you down it can be a rough crowd in here.

[+power69]

I think that caches should be changed to be required to only be 263 Ft. Apart, or .05 Miles. In Rhinelander, WI, most of the urban space has been filled and concentrated with caches, and yet still new people are introduced to caching, and would like to post some of their own in the city. It would be very nice if this change could be made.

 

I'd be more than happy if the guidelines were changed to a half mile apart. There's lots of wilderness in Wisconsin that could use a cache and that there would be absolutely no trouble with saturation.

oh please no. that would suck for us havenots[no car]

[+wimseyguy]

I'd like to change the concentration guidelines for Geocaches

 

.

[+Z3ROIN]

You're absolutely right! It *is* time for a change. From now forward, caches should not be closer than 1/4 mile, or 1,320 feet, or 402 meters.

 

That should cut down on the lame micros scattered around our urban spaces.

 

Right on!

[+DanOCan]

I believe this should be lowered from 528 ft. It is really hard for me to know exactly where to place a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache.

 

Let's say the guideline was dropped to 300'. It's going to then be just as difficult to know where to place a cache that is 300' from any other cache. Changing the saturation rule isn't the solution to the problem you are having.

[+DanOCan]

robertr337 don't let these post get you down it can be a rough crowd in here.

Hey, I thought we were all being really good and polite. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we're rough.

 

You know what we're like when things really get , right?

[+macatac1961]

They already have changed the guidelines. Or at least the way they interpret their own guidelines. Forever the rule has been .1 apart minimum but for my first 6 years of playing this game you could not place a cache every .1 as in 10 per mile of roadway or it was called a power trail which was not allowed. Now the game seems to be all about power trails, cache series or as many caches as you can place in a given area. They'll let you place a cache on every telephone pole for 50 miles but this is a fairly new mindset. I like numbers but I'm joining the crowd who call for more distance between them rather than less.

[Clan Riffster]

Anyone who thinks more distance would cut down on lame micros is just fooling themselves. There would be fewer lame micros, but there would also be fewer good caches. Those that hide lame caches would continue to do so, and those that hide good ones will continue to do so.

I'm not sure that's true. Those who hide for numbers use the 528' rule as a boundary of sorts. They can oft be seen, with GPSr in hand, wondering if they can squeeze in just one more. If the hypothetical 1056' guideline change were made, (and applied across the board without grandfather clauses), the number of P&Gs would be cut effectively in half. It's not self delusion. It's just simple math. If the change did not affect existing caches, then the growth would be decreased somewhat, (though not nearly as much), as folks would have fewer places to place P&Gs. Those wanting to infest an area with a power trail might have to decrease the total number of hides based on economics, as gas prices rise.

 

The end result, either way, would quite likely be a decrease in P&Gs.

 

Those who hide caches to share interesting, unique locations, and/or send folks on way kewl adventures aren't typically affected by the proximity guidelines, unless their spot happens to be near a road favored by the P&G crowd. When such hiders find themselves facing such predicaments, they generally just look for another kewl spot, knowing that the world is full of interesting, unique locations which are more than 528'/1056' from roadways.

 

In the distant future there will be no where to put a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache.

This shouldn't be that hard to cypher. If you know the square feet of the planet, (5,490,383,247,360,000 square feet, if my math skills haven't failed), and divide it into X number of 528' blocks, the sum should equal fairly close to the saturation point. I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 trillion potential cache hiding locations? Maybe? (My math skills really do suck, so I welcome any corrections) Figure 7 trillion locations would need to be really, really waterproof. That still leaves 3 trillion dry land hiding spots. Plot the growth rate of geocaching, figuring in the archival rates as well, and project that onto a calender to see when we'll hit the saturation point.

 

If your projection goes past December 21st, 2012, it becomes irrelevant.

 

...some of them are younger so its hard for them to get out in the woods.

Not sure why that's true for many of today's youth, but it seems to be the case these days. I practically grew up in the woods. On Saturdays and Sundays, I was typically out the door with the sunrise, and not home until the sunset, though I might pop in for lunch if I neglected to pack one. I tried imparting my love for nature in my children, but it only stuck with one of them. The rest would much rather stay indoors.

[Pup Patrol]

Whilst I also agree with the opinions expressed re the proximity guideline, I am starting to feel just a smidgen of sympathy for the OP robertr on his first visit to these forums!

 

MrsB

 

COMPLETELY OFF THE CURRENT TOPIC:

 

MrsB>

 

Someone should tell robertr not to post the tracking numbers of his trackables on his profile page. I nominate you, since you always say things more nicely than I do.

 

Nancy

 

The tracking numbers are still up there on his profile page.

 

 

B.

[+The Blorenges]

Whilst I also agree with the opinions expressed re the proximity guideline, I am starting to feel just a smidgen of sympathy for the OP robertr on his first visit to these forums!

 

MrsB

 

COMPLETELY OFF THE CURRENT TOPIC:

 

MrsB>

 

Someone should tell robertr not to post the tracking numbers of his trackables on his profile page. I nominate you, since you always say things more nicely than I do.

 

Nancy

 

The tracking numbers are still up there on his profile page.

 

 

I've just noticed these observations...

 

Let's hope robertr will come back and read through this thread and pick up on this. I can't go and nag this young guy about it - we haven't even been introduced!

 

Or maybe Mongo1965 could let him know that he should remove those tracking numbers and use the public reference numbers instead? I mean, he's a bit closer to robertr than me.

 

MrsB

[+The A-Team]

In the distant future there will be no where to put a cache that is 528 ft from any other cache.

This shouldn't be that hard to cypher. If you know the square feet of the planet, (5,490,383,247,360,000 square feet, if my math skills haven't failed), and divide it into X number of 528' blocks, the sum should equal fairly close to the saturation point. I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 trillion potential cache hiding locations? Maybe? (My math skills really do suck, so I welcome any corrections) Figure 7 trillion locations would need to be really, really waterproof. That still leaves 3 trillion dry land hiding spots. Plot the growth rate of geocaching, figuring in the archival rates as well, and project that onto a calender to see when we'll hit the saturation point.

Approximate area of the earth's land masses: 1,614,586,562,500,000 square feet

Generous assumption that a cache gets a 528' x 528' square block around it (rather than the actual circle): 278,784 square feet

Divide the available space by the area that a cache blocks out, and you get 5,791,532,378 possible hiding spots. That's ONLY 5.7 billion hiding spots. A far cry from the 3 trillion you came up with! With so few spots to choose from, how am I supposed to hide any caches?!

Now, that assumes that all caches are Traditional type caches. Physical stages of multis and puzzles would take up more space, whereas virtuals and Earthcaches wouldn't take up any. I think the multis and puzzles would take up more space than the virtual types would save, so they don't quite balance each other out. Let's assume then that multis and puzzles reduce the possible spots to 5 billion. Let's further knock off a half-billion (arbitrary number) to account for areas that don't allow geocaches. That leaves us with a grand total of...

4.5 billion hiding spots!

I don't think we'll be running out of spots anytime soon.

 

Now, all this is in jest. I understand that some people are simply unable to get out to the wide open spaces, and can only get around within their local urban area. In these cases, the proximity guideline is a very big limiting factor. I still don't think reducing the distance is the answer, though. Like others have said, urban caches tend not to last for a long time. Spaces are constantly coming available through archivals, whether it be due to muggling or the owner simply being unable/unwilling to maintain the cache.

 

For those with premium memberships, you can set up your notifications to alert you to caches being archived. This will let you know the instant a spot comes available. If you really want to go all out, you could set your notifications to alert you to "Reviewer note" and/or "Temporary disable" logs so you know when a cache is in danger of being archived.

[+Mongo1965]

OK I did send him a private message about his tracking codes not sure if he read it yet. You know how busy this younger group can be.