Petition to change the Cache Saturation policy

[floridabiker1]

How many of you are annoyed by the 0.1 mile cache saturation rule? I mean, come on. I understand that it's so finders won't get confused, but you could have two caches, say, 250 feet apart from each other and you still won't get confused.

 

So, I am making this petition to have as many people as possible state that they wish to lower the cache saturation policy down to 250 feet at the maximum, and then present this petition to Groundspeak.

 

So who's with me?

[+Fiver1]

I see no good reason to change the limit.

[+chillypenguin]

I placed as cache 167 metres from another (of mine) felt too close. My vote is for 250 metres between caches.

[+Condorito]

I doubt this rule will change for a long, long, time. It is on of the foundation blocks of geocaching... Plus, saturation is pretty good how it is...

[+MAntunes]

Sorry but, for me, the change should be in the opposite direction: limit the cache saturation issue by raising the distance between caches and by other means.

 

In my opinion there are too many caches, sometimes more than one to show the same thing/place.

[+wimseyguy]

I think we should increase it to .20 miles.

I'm growing weary of seeing cache listings that simply say 'there was room for another one in this parking lot'.

[+T.D.M.22]

I don't like the 524 foot rule either. I think it should be 500 or 550. Nice easy numbers.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Is it really necessary to have a cache on the corner of every city block and under every other lamp post in a parking lot? The cache saturation guideline is there for a reason. The name of it pretty much sums up that reason.

 

Saturation.

[+wimseyguy]

I don't like the 524 foot rule either. I think it should be 500 or 550. Nice easy numbers.

Then just remember that 0.1 mile-528' and you will be happier.

[+tozainamboku]

The saturation guideline use to be one of the few places where the guidelines provided a rationale.

 

I have no idea why Groundspeak thinks it is an improvement to provide a saturation guideline without a rationale.

 

If they idea is that caches are supposed to be kept separated so that cachers don't confuse them then why is there no minimum distance between stages within a multi?

 

If I recall, the rationale used to be to encourage caches to be placed in new areas and prevent any one cacher from dominating an area.

 

The old rationale was used, in part, to allow reviewers to deny caches that were considered power trails. The problem was the guideline itself didn't define what a power trail was, so the enforcement was rather uneven. Groundspeak got lots of complaints about reviewers treating different series of caches differently. Instead of coming up with a definition for power trails, Groundspeak decided to drop the rationale for the saturation guideline. That allowed for the placing of power trails by one individual or a group. Without the rationale the saturation guideline is simply an arbitrary rule and 200 ft is just as good as 528 feet.

 

It would be nice to hear from a lackey what the rationale is for continuing any saturation guideline at all. In the meantime, even though I personally think the distance between caches should be increased, I am virtually signing the OP's petition as his 250 ft. is just as good as any other number.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Quite a few folks have advocated for a longer distance spread regarding saturation. Really, quite a few. Some have even suggested upwards of 1/4 mile (1320 ft).

 

I would vote for a change -- yea, for it to be longer and nay for it to be shorter.

[+larryc43230]

Quite a few folks have advocated for a longer distance spread regarding saturation. Really, quite a few. Some have even suggested upwards of 1/4 mile (1320 ft).

 

I would vote for a change -- yea, for it to be longer and nay for it to be shorter.

^ ^ ^

This.

 

I vote no for a shorter distance, and I would vote yes for a longer distance. 1/4 mile feels about right.

 

--Larry

[+Harry Dolphin]

I vote no for a shorter distance, and I would vote yes for a longer distance. 1/4 mile feels about right.

 

--Larry

 

I agree with this.

[+Lil Devil]

How many of you are annoyed by the 0.1 mile cache saturation rule? ...

 

So who's with me?

I'm totally with you, man. The saturation policy should be changed to 1/4 mile, or 1,320 feet, or 402 meters, as soon as possible!

[team tisri]

The saturation guideline use to be one of the few places where the guidelines provided a rationale.

 

I have no idea why Groundspeak thinks it is an improvement to provide a saturation guideline without a rationale.

 

If they idea is that caches are supposed to be kept separated so that cachers don't confuse them then why is there no minimum distance between stages within a multi?

 

If I recall, the rationale used to be to encourage caches to be placed in new areas and prevent any one cacher from dominating an area.

 

I thought the saturation guideline was to prevent the potential confusion if someone was looking for one cache and found a different cache because they were close together. As I understand the rules it does apply to stages of a multi insofar as physical containers must be at least 0.1 mile apart. If a "question to answer" stage is used in a multi it could be that the exact same question is used in another multi - if it's based on something that isn't a physical container there is no confusion.

 

I agree that we don't need a film pot behind a sign just because the nearest film pot behind a sign is 531 feet away but at the same time it does seem like the saturation issue should be a guideline rather than a rule. If a micro is hidden 400 feet from an ammo can it's not as if the two will be confused, as long as they both have a size indicator. If caches are on opposite sides of a river they may be within 528 feet but it's not as if someone is going to accidentally cross the river while hunting a cache.

 

If anything I'd be inclined to increase the saturation radius to something more like 0.25 mile but also provide for people to request an exception if they believed their specific cache justified it. So we wouldn't see a generic film pot behind a road sign approved but if there was a particularly noteworthy location it might still have a cache even if there were another cache within a quarter mile of it.

[+Lil Devil]

If anything I'd be inclined to increase the saturation radius to something more like 0.25 mile but also provide for people to request an exception if they believed their specific cache justified it. So we wouldn't see a generic film pot behind a road sign approved but if there was a particularly noteworthy location it might still have a cache even if there were another cache within a quarter mile of it.

So basically, you're asking the reviewers to judge the quality of the 2nd cache. Good luck with that.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Quite a few folks have advocated for a longer distance spread regarding saturation. Really, quite a few. Some have even suggested upwards of 1/4 mile (1320 ft).

 

I would vote for a change -- yea, for it to be longer and nay for it to be shorter.

 

I also think that if any thing, the proximity guideline should be increased, but that's just as unlikely going to happen as have it decreased. It the distance were increased to 1/4 of a mile, there are so many caches that are closer than that the they'd all have to be grandfathered. I can just imagine the confusion that would cause when a new caches sees thousands of caches that are less than 1/4 of a mile.

 

I'm making up these number but for 95% of the places in the world the .1 of a mile limit works fine. For the other 5%, they're so saturated that they really don't need any more caches any way. If someone wants to hide a cache, find some place where it isn't so saturated. You might even have to drive a few miles.

[+BlueDeuce]

So who's with me?

 

No. Not interested.

[+StarBrand]

Count me out....

[+cerberus1]

If anything, I think 1/4 mile would be perfect.

[AZcachemeister]

The saturation guideline use to be one of the few places where the guidelines provided a rationale.

 

I have no idea why Groundspeak thinks it is an improvement to provide a saturation guideline without a rationale.

 

If they idea is that caches are supposed to be kept separated so that cachers don't confuse them then why is there no minimum distance between stages within a multi?

 

If I recall, the rationale used to be to encourage caches to be placed in new areas and prevent any one cacher from dominating an area.

 

The old rationale was used, in part, to allow reviewers to deny caches that were considered power trails. The problem was the guideline itself didn't define what a power trail was, so the enforcement was rather uneven. Groundspeak got lots of complaints about reviewers treating different series of caches differently. Instead of coming up with a definition for power trails, Groundspeak decided to drop the rationale for the saturation guideline. That allowed for the placing of power trails by one individual or a group. Without the rationale the saturation guideline is simply an arbitrary rule and 200 ft is just as good as 528 feet.

 

It would be nice to hear from a lackey what the rationale is for continuing any saturation guideline at all. In the meantime, even though I personally think the distance between caches should be increased, I am virtually signing the OP's petition as his 250 ft. is just as good as any other number.

 

The rationale is still the same.

Unfortunately the powertrail aficionados squawked long enough and loud enough to make the 528 foot rule stand on it's own.

 

Your anarchistic views are quite entertaining, tozainamboku.

Why stop at 200 feet?

If the CO properly labeled their cache (or used a QR code), there would be no chance of confusion and no reason caches couldn't be places every two feet. As well, if QR codes are used there would be no need to sign the log, so we will have killed two birds with one stone.

 

The Puritans will be devastated!

[+BlueDeuce]

The Puritans will be devastated!

 

No, quite unimpressed.

[+Mockingbird559]

It is fine the way it is.

[+tozainamboku]

 

The rationale is still the same.

Unfortunately the powertrail aficionados squawked long enough and loud enough to make the 528 foot rule stand on it's own.

 

Your anarchistic views are quite entertaining, tozainamboku.

Why stop at 200 feet?

If the CO properly labeled their cache (or used a QR code), there would be no chance of confusion and no reason caches couldn't be places every two feet. As well, if QR codes are used there would be no need to sign the log, so we will have killed two birds with one stone.

 

The Puritans will be devastated!

If the rationale is still the same, why has it disappeared from the guideline.

 

The problem the guidelines suffer is not the power trail aficionados squawking, but rather the reviewers demanding a simplified rule where they don't have to make subjective decisions. Instead of having to determine if a series was dominating an area, they simply look at distance from existing caches. The caches might or might not dominate an area and might or might not result in one cacher monopolizing an area. The guideline no longer has the original rationale.

 

Certainly an arbitrary distance can be less the 200 ft. And certainly if the cache is properly marked there is no reason to confuse two caches adjacent to one another. I have found letterboxes within feet of the cache on several occasions. I've found other boxes left near caches as part of other games. Oh yes, I've even found an old archived cache at the site of new cache and signed both logs and claimed the find on both caches. Do you find that devastating?

Edited March 3, 2013 by Keystone

[+kwcahart]

I would sign the petition, against it. 528 feet or more between caches is fine with me.

[+releasethedogs]

It would be nice to hear from a lackey...

Good luck on that one.

Id like to hear from a lackey (or Jeremy) regarding lots of things, but they never communicate. So Don't hold your breath. You're being ignored.

[+Isonzo Karst]

....

As I understand the rules it does apply to stages of a multi insofar as physical containers must be at least 0.1 mile apart. If a "question to answer" stage is used in a multi it could be that the exact same question is used in another multi - if it's based on something that isn't a physical container there is no confusion.

....

 

 

Hi team tisri, just wanted to clarify here. There's no distance requirement for stages of a multi-cache. They can be very close (running the risk that one is found while hunting for the other) or on different continents (assuming maintenance needs can be met). The current "cute" rage is a "multi-cache" with first stage in one side of a contact lens case, and the "final" in the other. Just an example.

 

Re saturation, I enjoyed reading Toz's reasoning. While not necessarily agreeing with it.

 

Re the OP's petition, I will not be signing. No change is likely or necessary.

 

As a cache placer, if you stay in the game long enough, you'll learn how to design around existing caches, and still bring people to the interesting feature. I own a number of caches where I've done this.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Isonzo Karst

[+eagsc7]

would agree that .1 mi or 528 feet is a good distance. Not only for the powertrail community, but as a rule of guidance. The thing I will remind you of is that the confusion issue is still there. IF I'm a noob and flipped 2 numbers as entering into gps, i could be off by 150 feet. also, older gps units could be off by 100 feet(same with phones now...) So, accuracy in that instance Could result in a find of another cache if the distance was shortened.

 

For Powertrails, i feel the optimal distance is just over .1 mi. it is just as easy to walk/Jog as would be to do the car in and out versions more commonly seen.

 

+1 for keeping it the same.

 

The Steaks

[+denpinesl]

I think their could be a bit of leeway to distance when it comes to placing caches. I recently placed one only to have the Reviewer tell me that it was too close to another cache. Reviewer stated that the other cache was 430 feet away. The other cache was just a simple "micro" in a guardrail. I was trying to place a cache next to a place of historical interest that was very informative.

 

So is this .1 of a mile a rule or a guideline?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

So is this .1 of a mile a rule or a guideline?

 

It is a guideline, that pretty much has the force of rule.

 

There are (few) exceptions. A physical/impassible barrier may sometimes be used as an exception, and even then it is reviewer dependent.

A canyon may qualify (most likely not, if it is a bridged canyon), water usually does not. I have not yet seen exceptions granted because of international borders, but I am guessing that they do exist.

 

I think you will find that most wish the guideline adhered to, as evidenced in this thread already.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think their could be a bit of leeway to distance when it comes to placing caches. I recently placed one only to have the Reviewer tell me that it was too close to another cache. Reviewer stated that the other cache was 430 feet away. The other cache was just a simple "micro" in a guardrail. I was trying to place a cache next to a place of historical interest that was very informative.

 

So is this .1 of a mile a rule or a guideline?

 

The quality of a cache will never be grounds for an exception. We really don't want reviewers (nor do they) making subjective decisions about whether or not they'll publish a cache based on whether it's a simple micro on a guardrail or a larger container that is cleverly hidden. Can you imagine what a reviewers "job" would be like if they told a potential cache owner, "sorry, your cache isn't good enough" to be published?"

 

In this case, the best that you can do is to contact the owner of that simple micro, tell them that it's blocking a cache you want to place at the historical location and ask if they would mind moving it 100' or to archive their cache so that you can place your own. Good luck with that.

[+geodarts]

There are parks and open space in my area that require caches to be listed on this site because of the saturation rule. It serves many purposes. But if I could I would increase the distance.

[+Fiver1]

To the OP:

I'm not trying to be rude, but you have less than 6 months in the hobby, have found less than 20 caches, have hidden no caches, and you want to change the game? Why not give yourself a bit more time to evaluate what you like and don't like about the way Groundspeak has geocaching set up? ( this is predicated on the fact that you didn't have a previous account) Remember this hobby didn't just start last year. It's been around for more than a decade.

 

I've been in this a good bit longer than you and have no problem with the way things currently work.

[team tisri]

If anything I'd be inclined to increase the saturation radius to something more like 0.25 mile but also provide for people to request an exception if they believed their specific cache justified it. So we wouldn't see a generic film pot behind a road sign approved but if there was a particularly noteworthy location it might still have a cache even if there were another cache within a quarter mile of it.

So basically, you're asking the reviewers to judge the quality of the 2nd cache. Good luck with that.

 

Not the quality of the cache, the suitability of the location.

 

If there's a cache one side of the river and a noteworthy landmark the other side perhaps the reviewers could use some discretion. Whether the cache itself is a well stocked ammo can or a wet film pot isn't the issue - if we expected reviewers to judge the quality of caches they would be endlessly embroiled in arguments.

 

If someone wants to place a cache within 1/4 mile of another cache they have to make a good case as to why it should be allowed. A "noteworthy location" would need to be one that might interest a lot of people, the fact it has some claimed significance to the would-be cache setter is immaterial. So, for example, a particular style of building overlooking a river might be approved but the park bench where my wife and I watched our first sunset after were married might not.

[+tozainamboku]

A "noteworthy location" would need to be one that might interest a lot of people, the fact it has some claimed significance to the would-be cache setter is immaterial. So, for example, a particular style of building overlooking a river might be approved but the park bench where my wife and I watched our first sunset after were married might not.

You still want to bring back virtual caches, don't you?

[+redants]

I think- that if it is impossible to walk to them, it could go down to 100m. Because if there is one at the bottom of a mountain and one at the top, as the crow flies it is less than 250m, but 1k in walking distance

[+The Vikings]

Leave it as it is. If it should be changed in any way to get 'even' figures, go for metres, not feet or miles. There are more people in the world using the metric system than any other measuring system.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I would prefer the OPPOSITE.

 

I want to see at least 1000 foot separation.

 

Or...leave it at .6 however, no more than three similar caches (type/size) especially from the same owner.

[+Condorito]

I think this is a bit of a pointless thread... hardly anyone wants to see the distance shortened, and you can't make it longer. You would have to archive thousand of caches if you did.

[+Lieblweb]

Not interested!

 

I would rather see more emphasis on maintenance and disabling and/or archiving caches that aren't being taken care of.

[+J Grouchy]

 

The rationale is still the same.

Unfortunately the powertrail aficionados squawked long enough and loud enough to make the 528 foot rule stand on it's own.

 

Your anarchistic views are quite entertaining, tozainamboku.

Why stop at 200 feet?

If the CO properly labeled their cache (or used a QR code), there would be no chance of confusion and no reason caches couldn't be places every two feet. As well, if QR codes are used there would be no need to sign the log, so we will have killed two birds with one stone.

 

The Puritans will be devastated!

If the rationale is still the same, why has it disappeared from the guideline.

 

The problem the guidelines suffer is not the power trail aficionados squawking, but rather the reviewers demanding a simplified rule where they don't have to make subjective decisions. Instead of having to determine if a series was dominating an area, they simply look at distance from existing caches. The caches might or might not dominate an area and might or might not result in one cacher monopolizing an area. The guideline no longer has the original rationale.

 

Certainly an arbitrary distance can be less the 200 ft. And certainly if the cache is properly marked there is no reason to confuse two caches adjacent to one another. I have found letterboxes within feet of the cache on several occasions. I've found other boxes left near caches as part of other games. Oh yes, I've even found an old archived cache at the site of new cache and signed both logs and claimed the find on both caches. Do you find that devastating?

 

Yeah...I don't have a problem with the smaller distance, as long as there is some good judgment involved. 100 feet apart in a parking lot? No. 200 feet apart in a scenic park or along a hiking trail? Sure...why not? Problem comes from the reviewers being far enough removed to not be able to use such judgment...seems like a lot to ask.

 

One problem I have is an interesting location I tried placing a cache was rejected because the physical cache location was 475 feet from a puzzle cache.

 

First, I had no way of knowing where that puzzle cache was because the listing did not give the cache location. I only found out after the cache was placed and the reviewer disabled it. Granted, there was one other problem with the listing because of its location and permissions...but that was easily overcome with a slight adjustment that wouldn't require a long walk or a drive to another location.

 

Second, my location actually had some historic and scenic value while the existing cache was located right by a freaking parking lot. I'm now forced to make mine an offset of some sort, probably having to put mine in a less interesting location while trying to somehow route them through the intended location. It's quite possible and is not really a "hardship"...but I would have preferred not force people to traverse roads and parking lots to get to the cache I intended, which is the only possible thing for me to do now. If the 528 rule could have been more flexible, I could have adjusted my cache location and, while within a tenth of a mile from another cache, it would have been worlds apart...tucked into an almost completely unknown but cool little spot near my office.

 

I don't like 'blanket rules' like the 528 rule because it basically just takes one part of reviewing completely out of a reviewer's hands.

Edited March 4, 2013 by J Grouchy

[team tisri]

A "noteworthy location" would need to be one that might interest a lot of people, the fact it has some claimed significance to the would-be cache setter is immaterial. So, for example, a particular style of building overlooking a river might be approved but the park bench where my wife and I watched our first sunset after were married might not.

You still want to bring back virtual caches, don't you?

 

I'd like to bring back virtuals but this discussion isn't about virtuals, it's about the purpose of the saturation rule.

 

I always understood the purpose of the saturation rule to be the avoidance of situations where a cacher is looking for one cache but, on finding another, believes it's the one they are hunting. If that is the rationale then there's no reason why two caches shouldn't be within 5 feet of each other if one is a film pot and the other is an ammo can. There's no reason why two caches shouldn't be within the saturation range if there are natural or artificial barriers between them, so caches could be on opposite banks of a 250 foot wide river. A cache part way up a cliff face could be within 100 feet of a cache at the bottom - someone hunting the 5/5 rated cache half way up the cliff will know immediately that the film pot under the bench beneath it isn't the cache they are seeking, and the person searching the bench will know they haven't just found a 5/5 cache that requires climbing gear.

[+northernpenguin]

How many of you are annoyed by the 0.1 mile cache saturation rule? I mean, come on. I understand that it's so finders won't get confused, but you could have two caches, say, 250 feet apart from each other and you still won't get confused.

 

So, I am making this petition to have as many people as possible state that they wish to lower the cache saturation policy down to 250 feet at the maximum, and then present this petition to Groundspeak.

 

So who's with me?

 

NO. I've had enough talks with land managers who's first sight of a geocaching map is "holy crap" followed immediately by "I want those removed".

Take a look at the Toronto/Mississauga area on that QR game's map to see what a 100' saturation rule gets you.

 

If anything, I'd be happy with a doubling of the saturation distance, particularly in urban areas.

 

 

[+northernpenguin]

I think this is a bit of a pointless thread... hardly anyone wants to see the distance shortened, and you can't make it longer. You would have to archive thousand of caches if you did.

 

Look up "Grandfathering". Non issue, rule would apply to new hides only.

[Keystone]

If the distance is changed in either direction, there would be a huge grandfathering problem. Shorten the distance, and everyone who was ever denied an exception will pop out of the woodwork to complain. Lengthen the distance and grandfather existing caches that are less than .25 miles apart, and examples of caches .1 miles apart will be cited ad nauseum.

 

Remember, we get new virtual and webcam cache submissions each week, even though those types have been "grandfathered" since 2005. People imitate what they see.

 

That said, if we do decrease the distance, my vote would be 300 feet rather than 250. It shouldn't make a difference, unless you happen to have hidden a cache that's less than 300 feet but more than 250 feet from its existing neighbor.

[+northernpenguin]

 

That said, if we do decrease the distance, my vote would be 300 feet rather than 250. It shouldn't make a difference, unless you happen to have hidden a cache that's less than 300 feet but more than 250 feet from its existing neighbor.

 

Well, there's *always* gonna be complainers. No matter what.

 

300 feet is nice for one more reason. 300 feet = 100 metres, a nice round number that's a lot easier to remember than 162.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think this is a bit of a pointless thread... hardly anyone wants to see the distance shortened, and you can't make it longer. You would have to archive thousand of caches if you did.

 

Look up "Grandfathering". Non issue, rule would apply to new hides only.

 

So what you'd end up with is new guideline with tens of thousands of caches which appear to the newbie to violate the guideline. It seems like at least once a week someone that has had their new cache rejected, and points out other similar caches that exit, has to be reminded about the no precedent guideline. I can just imagine what reviewers would have to go through with 10s if not 100s of thousands of "grandfathered" caches.

[+The A-Team]

300 feet is nice for one more reason. 300 feet = 100 metres, a nice round number that's a lot easier to remember than 162.

300 feet is 91.44 metres. Not so nice and round...

 

...unless the "round" you're talking about is the rounding of 91 up to 100.

[+northernpenguin]

300 feet is nice for one more reason. 300 feet = 100 metres, a nice round number that's a lot easier to remember than 162.

300 feet is 91.44 metres. Not so nice and round...

 

...unless the "round" you're talking about is the rounding of 91 up to 100.

 

That's pretty much what everyone would do. Besides 10M is where you put the GPS away and start looking for the geocache anyway.

I'd be a lot better with 1000M separation but we'll have a lot harder time getting to the 5,000,000 geocaches milestone events if we did that.

[AZcachemeister]

I think this is a bit of a pointless thread... hardly anyone wants to see the distance shortened, and you can't make it longer. You would have to archive thousand of caches if you did.

 

You say that as if it would be a bad thing?

 

If the minimum separation were increased, those currently in place would likely be grandfathered in.

Thus creating much angst and controversy...and forum fodder!