Jump to content

Minimum Distance


Recommended Posts

Can anyone tell me why the minimum distance between caches is 0.1 mile? Is it due to ease of grid reference or something?

Just wondering if there was a case (or indeed, is it possible) for the minimum distance to be increased, or

is everyone happy with 0.1 mile?

Link to comment

I believe it's to avoid one cache being found and logged as another, close by, cache by accident. You'd need pretty poor reception or very bad co-ords to get caches 160m or 527ft apart mixed up though. I don't think there's a case for changing the current guideline (it's flexible enough not to be a rule) as it works pretty well.

 

SP - posting under the wrong account.

Edited by Geolympix
Link to comment

I confess, I would be on Jeremy's side. For us, the novelty has worn off and one of the reasons is the minimum distance.

Post - cache, tree - cache, post - cache, tree - cache.

Yes, I know that some caches are in lovely places and on lovely walks but I now feel there are just too many caches out there. It is getting harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Link to comment

I confess, I would be on Jeremy's side. For us, the novelty has worn off and one of the reasons is the minimum distance.

Post - cache, tree - cache, post - cache, tree - cache.

Yes, I know that some caches are in lovely places and on lovely walks but I now feel there are just too many caches out there. It is getting harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

Must admit caching does not have the appeal it once did and it's harder to select the ones you are really interested in.

 

To me it went downhill when big series began to evolve.

 

The UK Mega series being a prime example;

Caches placed for someone's 5 minutes of glory

Caches not maintained

 

Now we have someone else setting replacement caches in this series and another mechanism seems to have crept in;

"Cache archived because of number of DNF's" setting yet another president

 

To me the biggest benefit to caching at present would be a per day limit of one cache published per team. :D

Link to comment

I’m inclined to agree. I can’t help feeling like a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to a big series though because we have completed some of them! In fact, I think that we were one of the first teams to set what could be deemed as a power trail (long since archived and approx 40 caches). This fact doesn’t mean that I have to like the way things have gone now though. Despite the fact that we have completed a couple of mega trails (3 or 4 years ago), I still feel that there are just too many now and I agree, the maintenance issue is questionable in some cases. If I remember correctly, a few years ago, power trails were not allowed but then the rule was relaxed. Why was that?

I know it is controversial but I still feel there should be a mechanism whereby setting caches has a pre-requisite of length of involvement or cache finds. Just recently a cache nearby was archived due to non maintenance. The CO joined on day 1 and found a cache. They set a cache on day 2 and never logged on again. I know there is the age old argument that a newb is just a capable of setting a great cache as an old timer but in reality, how often is this the case?

I’ve gone off on a tangent a bit but imo, increasing the minimum distance would at least help with the total amount of caches covering the country.

Link to comment
I can’t help feeling like a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to a big series though because we have completed some of them!

Don't feel bad. Most of us are hypocrites in many parts of our lives, every day; also, opinions change over time. Many people probably thought that fast food chain X or handy gadget Y were great when they appeared, but then we became disillusioned. It's part of the human condition.

 

The good news is, nobody is forcing you to go

Post - cache, tree - cache, post - cache, tree - cache.

In fact I would argue that if you truly thought that there was a problem with density, you would leave those caches alone and go for a single ammo box at the end of a lovely hill walk. I don't call this hypocrisy; it's just that you're only part of the way along the road of discovery of your dissatisfaction. (And you might still decide to turn back. FWIW: I don't have a problem with density, and I'm happy to find any cache. But in another area of my life away from geocaching, I recently identified that I was doing the complaining but not actually acting consistently with that, and it was causing tension.)

Link to comment

My advice: Set the 'Hidden before' feature when doing a PQ and select 2003 or 2004. You'll miss out on many newer, excellent caches, but 95% of the geocrud too. Or do what I did in 2008; lower your expectations :)

 

My theory is not that 'all caches were great in the early days' but that 'only the good ones have survived'.

 

I know of a cache set not too far from us which was basically lobbed under a bush outside a hotel. It was muggled and archived before anyone even found it.

'A familiar story these days' I hear you all say with a sigh...

Yet this one was set in May 2001!! :D

 

 

Mark

Link to comment

My advice: Set the 'Hidden before' feature when doing a PQ and select 2003 or 2004. You'll miss out on many newer, excellent caches, but 95% of the geocrud too. Or do what I did in 2008; lower your expectations :)

 

My expectations are always high and there are many good cache setters out there especially the writer of this post.

 

The 0.1mi limit is needed as there could be two very good locations very close.

 

I've enjoyed some good series too.

 

I do select what I seek and will travel far in my quest for quality but it is becoming very time consuming.

 

My "published in the UK in last 7 days" PQ returned 816 caches this morning....

 

....How long can the UK sustain such a placement rate and how many of those caches will be quality.

 

I live in hope. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I now only cache if Hazels plans it because I can't be bothered to wade through all the detritus to get the good caches out.

 

However, if you want a breath of fresh air, come to the New Forest, the number of caches is limited and the distance tends to be higher. Now call me a trouble maker but for some reason I would say nearly every cache within the forest is above average in quality. Cause and Effect?

Link to comment

I can't hike any more. The mind is willing but the body is not. So a few caches located in a local park is fine for me. Where I live NE London, there are quite a few like this. So I am happy. I can still ride a bike, so amongst my planed outings there is a set that I can do. They are along the tow path of a local canal. Bit of a déjà view, as I once placed a series along the same place.

I feel sure that there are others in the same situation as myself. So caches placed within the 0.1 mile of each other is OK in our books.

Link to comment

For those who don't like power trails, they are pretty easy to spot on the map. Increasing distance requirements might make it more fun for some but as long as people remember there's no need to find every cache just because it's there a lot of different preferences can work.

 

I don't like caches hidden up trees for the simple reason I don't climb very well (being -ahem- gravitationally challenged) but accept that others like climbing trees so I just ignore them.

Link to comment

Personally I like circulars and trails and if the caches are within a short distance all the better!

I dislike walking for no purpose so a dozen caches over two or three miles is great and encourages me to get exercise, wanting to grab them all is also a good challenge or target. A single cache in the middle of nowhere unless it's close to a road I am on , holds little inspiration for me.

 

As too there being x number of new caches published in a week there are also x number archived, removed or mugged.

 

How many can the uk sustain, well looking at the maps at least 3 or 4 times the current amount. There are lots of areas with no caches for miles!

Edited by dgk
Link to comment

In my opinion, when you look at a cache page with a view to searching for it then you generally have a good idea what you are going to find at GZ. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised and sometimes I am disappointed. Sometimes I am 'wowed' and sometimes I feel the need to point out that the cache is not particularly good quality.

In the olden days cachers may feel they were extremely lucky that every cache was supposedly top quality but I dont necessarily believe that was actually the case.

The most important factor of this discussion is that ultimately it is down to me. As long as I continue to enjoy checking out every cache on my (quite limited) travels then I am happy to get on with doing it. I love the saying 'If caching these days is so bad why am I having so much fun'. Me and my boys generally always do.

I dont need to sort out the 'Wheat from the chaffe' because I am happy just taking each cache as it comes, dont get stressed and keep an open mind.

Only GS can really make a real difference to cache quality and that can only come from stricter guidelines and reviewers actually being tasked with asessing quality, neither of which is going to happen.

In the meantime I will just keep caching one smilie at a time and enjoy the fact that I am able to do so.

Link to comment

God, some of you love to moan.

 

Too many caches? What? If you don't like having so much choice, spend an evening ignoring everything on the map that offends you.

 

Density has no link to quality. None.

 

OP: 0.1 is a pretty good guideline. Close enough to give the "Oh, go on, one more" feel when on a walk, or as a detour to another walk.

Edited by dartymoor
Link to comment

And what's more; I haven't even identified a single power trail yet in any area that I've been geocaching. So those that are finding them a problem must be going out of their way to seek them out! I've only spotted one or two in the USA when a forum thread has mentioned them.

 

N.B. A trail that encourages you on a pleasant walk by having caches averaging (for example) a quarter of a mile apart isn't a power trail. A true PT will have caches strictly 0.1 miles apart, probably several hundred of them, with no regard to suitable locations at all. The likes of the WWW series may have a lot of caches but in my view is neither a power trail nor does it diminish the value of caching. It's dead easy to avoid anyway if you're not interested.

 

At the moment I've been seeking a single cache for about a week (off and on). Needless to say, it's 5* difficulty so I suspect it will be several more weeks before I can have a crack at the FTF. I'm surprised that many people moan about quality and yet many top notch caches seems to have very few finds, just because they are a bit challenging and require a bit more effort than the average. I know that not all puzzles appeal, or are within the grasp of everyone, but the same goes for long multicaches or caches in far flung areas.

Link to comment

I don't understand what is wrong with post - cache, tree - cache, post - cache etc. If you don't want to do them, don't.

 

However for those who seem to dislike these type of caches, how about a third rating "Quality" which could perhaps be initially set by the C.O. but do some form of averaging on results submitted by finders (and perhaps even by Did not finders)?

 

===sgb

Link to comment

I don't understand what is wrong with post - cache, tree - cache, post - cache etc. If you don't want to do them, don't.

 

However for those who seem to dislike these type of caches, how about a third rating "Quality" which could perhaps be initially set by the C.O. but do some form of averaging on results submitted by finders (and perhaps even by Did not finders)?

 

===sgb

 

I suspect every cache owner might think they are producing quality.

 

However many don't seem to effect any quality control when even selecting the type of cache they intend submitting.

 

Recently saw a trad which said it is not at the published coordinates you will have to puzzle some. I was considered arogant by the CO for flagging that one up.

 

Not 5 minutes ago I've just seen another one very similar.

 

If setters cant grasp fundamental guidelines what hope is there. :huh:

Link to comment

OK on the initial question I would guess that the 0.1 mile may also be down to help people when placing caches as a lot of the older GPS's may only display in miles or kilometres and 0.1 miles seems a reasonable distance away from another cache unless it is part of a series etc.

 

As the conversation has diversed again to quality of caches and different people have different opinions on quantity etc I'll add my bit.

 

What's wrong with having lots of caches? Yes some of them may be of poor quality as to location but as someone pointed out not everyone can walk 5 miles along a muddy field, cross a stream up and over a few hills just to get to one cache that has a stunning view. Some people need to have a cache on the side of a road, along a cycle path in a town. If we have lots of caches in all sorts of different areas then it gives people choice. Everyone has a choice if they want to go and find that cache that they know will be a micro on the back of a road sign next to a major A road that runs right through the town. Persoanlly I'm not keen on the town caches as I like to be somewhere a little more quiet. However some can't travel so at least they have a cache they can go and find.

 

As to quality of the actual cache then that's another story which every CO can do something about. I like the magnetic micro's they work well, can be hidden in very open spaces without being found and keep the log dry. The other canisters like a film canister seem to keep dry too but I have found the old 35mm film canisters do tend to leak and the CO should do something more in keeping the contents dry if they use them. The larger storage boxes with the lockable flaps seem to work well to, especially when hidden in camo bags etc to hide them.

 

I noticed 9 new caches had just appeared right near where I work and usually walk in my lunch breaks, so decided to give these a go. The caches I did yesterday had a coupld of poor boxes, these where like a small lunch box clear plastic bottom and a bright blue lid. They were very brittle and the second one I found had already split, they were only registered on the site at the end of May so IU can't see these lasting too long. Also there were some bright white containers. Both the lunchboxes and white containers were all hidden at the base of trees or in plants around the housing estates. My worry here is that come winter when the greenery dies off they are going to become very visible and are sure to get muggled. Now today I've done 5 more caches in the area by the same CO and they have all been far better. Well hidden and containers that should hopefully last and keep the log dry.

 

Yes quality may not have been the best for the local work caches, but I was pleased to be able to go on a local find during my lunch break. We all have our own criteria as to what is a good cache, when we can cache and where we can cache. So having a large choice is a big benefit to all.

 

I meant to add this....

 

The only way that we are going to help members find the preffered caches is to have better facilities on the site. Why can we not have a rating system on the quality of location and teh actual cache. People can then filter these as they see fit. We already have Terrain and Difficulty why not add to it?

 

Paul

Edited by Langy
Link to comment

I'd be surprised if Quality didn't eventually get added, with 1-5 or 1-10 votes for each successful find (with a default of 5 so logging doesn't get to be a chore). Perhaps hiding the individual votes would allow cachers to give accurate rather than diplomatic votes, only displaying "This cache has been rated at 7.6/10 by 32 geocachers"

 

Favourites are great and all, but if you pick and choose caches, you end up wanting to give more than you have, so some deserving ones have to go without.

 

Opencaching have been doing this for some time and it's supported by the Garmin handsets as far as I know. They also do some extra votes, but most of those are pretty silly and make logging an opencache quite tiresome. (Awesomeness? Really?)

Link to comment

Well i agree with what you all say but the problem i have is i set a ring of caches with some about 0.1m which are in a wooded area.It seems that one one cache cords are out and cant move it as it makes it to close to the next.Okay rules are rules but they are only my caches in the area and it seems a shame to spoil everybodys fun for a simple move.Well lesson learnt in woods make it 0.2 ml simples.

Link to comment

I'd be surprised if Quality didn't eventually get added.....

 

..... (Awesomeness? Really?)

 

What's in a name? Quality and Awesomeness are pretty much the same thing when used in this context.

 

I think the idea is great, and love the Garmin way of finders being able to affect the difficulty, terrain and yes, awesomeness ratings.

Link to comment

Isn't "Awesomeness" an American word for some sort of "wow factor"? Quite different from "quality".

 

Anyway, as I understand it the 0.1 rule is simply there to prevent cache confusion. In many locations it's quite possible to disbelieve the GPS signal when you're faced with what is clearly a geocache. So if the position where you've found an unlabelled micro is only (say) 200 feet from where the GPS indicates, you might well be content to sign the log and continue on your way; despite this actually being a different cache from the one you're seeking. After all, in heavy tree cover at this time of the year even the best GPSr can be inaccurate: and if the cache hider was also using an inaccurate reading then there's no point in trying to get within the standard 10 metre range before having a look. But 528 feet is getting well outside that normal range.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...