Jump to content

Petition to change the Cache Saturation policy


floridabiker1

Recommended Posts

While new cachers will find the rule frustrating due to alot of caches placed strategically in areas to keep other cachers out.

I seriously doubt whether any cacher has ever placed a lot of caches in a particular area in an attempt to deliberately block others from hiding caches. What would possibly be the point of that exercise? If a cache owner completely dominates an area with his caches, there would be no caches for him to find.

 

Sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to believe that a cache owner would deliberately "mark his territory" by saturating the area with his own caches. At least I've never seen any evidence of that.

 

Besides, if one cache owner has managed to dominate a particular area, whose "fault" is that? Where were the other cachers who could have hidden caches before he did? When it comes to placing caches, it's first come, first served. You snooze, you lose.

 

--Larry

 

Power trails? A CO takes up miles and miles of a trail with no other caches allowed so there's no caches for him to find. So it's his trail now.

Where were the other cachers? Well often there was already a few caches along the trail but they get swallowed up by the PT and those folks end up getting logs thanking the PT owner for dominating the trail.

Link to comment

Power trails? A CO takes up miles and miles of a trail with no other caches allowed so there's no caches for him to find. So it's his trail now.

Where were the other cachers? Well often there was already a few caches along the trail but they get swallowed up by the PT and those folks end up getting logs thanking the PT owner for dominating the trail.

I still doubt whether the motivation behind creating a power trail is to monopolize a particular area. They're more likely created simply because the cache hider thinks they're cool after seeing all the publicity and enthusiasm other power trails have engendered. I do feel sorry for the other hiders whose caches are diminished because of a power trail, but IMHO that's an unfortunate side effect and not by intention.

 

I'm not a fan of power trails, and I'll probably never do one, but that's simply because they're not my idea of a good time.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

... While new cachers will find the rule frustrating due to alot of caches placed strategically in areas to keep other cachers out.

I have never in 11+ years seen any evidence anywhere I have travelled that caches were placed strategically or otherwise with the singular goal of blocking "new" cachers from putting out a cache. Nor could I even imagine a good reason for doing so.

 

Some cachers put a lot of caches out in a small area but not to prevent new cachers from getting one out.

Link to comment

I think there should defiantly be a change in the saturation rule to afford for areas that have locations that are possibly of interest. Having 20 micros in a mile marking just another lamp post or traffic meters, or other excuse is a waste.

 

Having 20 in a large scenic park , with multiple hidden spots where someone might find beauty is another thing entirely.

 

I think you will find VERY different opinions from people, Old cachers will not want anything to change so their caches remain uncrowded. While new cachers will find the rule frustrating due to alot of caches placed strategically in areas to keep other cachers out.

 

You've already got one thread complaining about this. And, a saturation rule change isn't going to change your situation either.

Link to comment

Even if someone were putting out caches strategically to block other cachers from hiding their own caches (and I've never seen any evidence of it either), increasing the distance between caches would only play into their hands by making it even easier to block off a whole area.

 

As things stand this apparently mythical zone blocker can only block an area of 0.1 miles around each of his caches so needs to put a huge number out there to block off a large area. If that distance is increased to 0.25 miles it becomes much easier to block off areas - two caches 0.49 miles apart make it impossible to put one between them.

Link to comment

Wouldn't having some sort of cashe limit be a more sensible solution if people's problem is that someone else is hogging an area. Something like your non-series cashes have to be one mile apart, thus allowing someone else ample opportunity to find a good spot between the two.

Edited by learnincurve
Link to comment

While new cachers will find the rule frustrating due to alot of caches placed strategically in areas to keep other cachers out.

I seriously doubt whether any cacher has ever placed a lot of caches in a particular area in an attempt to deliberately block others from hiding caches. What would possibly be the point of that exercise? If a cache owner completely dominates an area with his caches, there would be no caches for him to find.

 

Sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to believe that a cache owner would deliberately "mark his territory" by saturating the area with his own caches. At least I've never seen any evidence of that.

 

Besides, if one cache owner has managed to dominate a particular area, whose "fault" is that? Where were the other cachers who could have hidden caches before he did? When it comes to placing caches, it's first come, first served. You snooze, you lose.

 

--Larry

Hey, I actually have seen this happening but the cache placers own admission. If you search the forums you will see stories of cachers intentionally destroying new caches as well. Its sad, counterproductive and just weird, but its apparently does happen.

 

As someone fairy new to the hobby, it seems as though its going to have to change due to the sheer number of caches in a given area.

 

I agree with some of the ideas generated here such as:

Caches not visited being deactivated.

Caches not maintained being auto deactivated.

 

Perhaps whats needed is a more automated system to remove caches that are abandoned. Maybe something like 10 DNF ina a row by a premium member or something?

Edited by xipotec
Link to comment

Well first of all,

 

Geocaching has become global and in most countries we think in metric values-.

 

160m apart is ok, and changing the distance does not make sense. Berlin, germany e.g is almost saturated.

If you raise the distancee what will happen to existing Caches, and anyhow, there are many places worth a cache less than 160m apart.

If you shrink the value, however it would be hard to squeeze caches between two others, it will always be close to another.

So please just stick with that rule.

Only with stages of multicaches, i would agree to loosen it.

There is a differnce between finding a final box or a Station for a multicache, so they could be less than 160m apart in my opinion

Link to comment

While new cachers will find the rule frustrating due to alot of caches placed strategically in areas to keep other cachers out.

I seriously doubt whether any cacher has ever placed a lot of caches in a particular area in an attempt to deliberately block others from hiding caches. What would possibly be the point of that exercise? If a cache owner completely dominates an area with his caches, there would be no caches for him to find.

 

Sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to believe that a cache owner would deliberately "mark his territory" by saturating the area with his own caches. At least I've never seen any evidence of that.

 

Besides, if one cache owner has managed to dominate a particular area, whose "fault" is that? Where were the other cachers who could have hidden caches before he did? When it comes to placing caches, it's first come, first served. You snooze, you lose.

 

--Larry

Hey, I actually have seen this happening but the cache placers own admission. If you search the forums you will see stories of cachers intentionally destroying new caches as well. Its sad, counterproductive and just weird, but its apparently does happen.

 

As someone fairy new to the hobby, it seems as though its going to have to change due to the sheer number of caches in a given area.

 

I agree with some of the ideas generated here such as:

Caches not visited being deactivated.

Caches not maintained being auto deactivated.

 

Perhaps whats needed is a more automated system to remove caches that are abandoned. Maybe something like 10 DNF ina a row by a premium member or something?

 

Caches not visited don't need to be deactivated. Some caches are in remote areas and by the nature of the cache and location aren't visited very often. Others are only accessible in certain seasons so could easily go several months without being found. Some are tricky puzzles that don't get found very often. I've personally found three caches that had previously gone 12 months or more without a find, and caching buddies of mine have found other caches that went over two years without a find.

 

Caches that aren't maintained will soon attract Needs Maintenance logs and if they are ignored sooner or later someone posts Needs Archived. From there it's only a matter of time before a local reviewer disables the cache to give the owner chance to fix it, and then archives it for non-maintenance.

 

A number of DNFs doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem. It could mean the cache is very hard to find, it could mean that a group of people hunted without success and everybody logged DNF, it could mean the cache has gone missing. Which is why after a few of them someone will usually log Needs Maintenance and ask the owner to check it's still there.

Link to comment
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!

 

Farther apart would be better than closer together. I like the 1/4 mile idea, or if we want to go metric, 400 meters.

Link to comment

 

Hey, I actually have seen this happening but the cache placers own admission. If you search the forums you will see stories of cachers intentionally destroying new caches as well. Its sad, counterproductive and just weird, but its apparently does happen.

 

As someone fairy new to the hobby, it seems as though its going to have to change due to the sheer number of caches in a given area.

 

I agree with some of the ideas generated here such as:

Caches not visited being deactivated.

Caches not maintained being auto deactivated.

 

Perhaps whats needed is a more automated system to remove caches that are abandoned. Maybe something like 10 DNF ina a row by a premium member or something?

If you are actually seeing this, it is likely a localized and temporary phenomenon. From time to time we get people who like to cause trouble or dominate others. Call them geo-bullies if you like. People like this usually don't stay around in the hobby long. Others in the community find ways to make it harder for them to achieve their goals. Others may place more caches, and they may watchlist the bully's caches and report problems via needs archived or need maintenance logs. Bullies usually don't like criticism and the hardly ever like having to expend effort. Most give up either because they aren't having the effect they wanted or they find it too much trouble.

 

New cachers often perceive a few problems that, IMO, are not really there (or at least are not that serious). A area may appear to be saturated with all the good places taken. In reality there are other good placed if you just expand your radius. And you will also find that caches are archived all the time. Watching for spaces to open up means that you may yet be able to place the cache if you are just patient.

 

Newbies often suggest the idea of automatically archiving caches that have lots of DNFs or that have a Needs Maintenance that the owner hasn't cleared. IMO, some newbies get so excited and into the game that they don't realize most other players have a life outside of geocaching. The website says you should take care of maintenance issues in a few weeks. But the truth is that most caches owners take considerably longer. Sometime they need a nudge with a needs archive log. That also makes the reviewer aware, and if the problem isn't correct after some period, the reviewer can archive the cache. Eventually however the problem will be fixed or the cache will be archived.

 

When you've been around a while, you realize that these issues are not that serious. You will seen caches come and go. Some owners will put in a lot of effort to make sure you have a good caching experience, others will place a cache a forget about it. In the end you can imagine whose caches last and whose get archived.

Link to comment

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?

I'm not with you.

 

The 0.10 mile guideline is the foundation for far too many land manager policies. Many already ask for more distance.

 

"Saturation" at the 528' mark isn't a problem for everyone, everywhere. Sure, there are areas that are jam packed at the current distances. But that is the entire purpose of having this "growth boundary" for Geocaching--to allow caches to saturate to a point. It just so happens that some areas are worse than others when it comes to being saturated.

 

Perhaps we should propose a membership saturation guideline for highly populated areas instead? :laughing:

Link to comment

 

Hey, I actually have seen this happening but the cache placers own admission. If you search the forums you will see stories of cachers intentionally destroying new caches as well. Its sad, counterproductive and just weird, but its apparently does happen.

 

As someone fairy new to the hobby, it seems as though its going to have to change due to the sheer number of caches in a given area.

 

I agree with some of the ideas generated here such as:

Caches not visited being deactivated.

Caches not maintained being auto deactivated.

 

Perhaps whats needed is a more automated system to remove caches that are abandoned. Maybe something like 10 DNF ina a row by a premium member or something?

If you are actually seeing this, it is likely a localized and temporary phenomenon. From time to time we get people who like to cause trouble or dominate others. Call them geo-bullies if you like. People like this usually don't stay around in the hobby long. Others in the community find ways to make it harder for them to achieve their goals. Others may place more caches, and they may watchlist the bully's caches and report problems via needs archived or need maintenance logs. Bullies usually don't like criticism and the hardly ever like having to expend effort. Most give up either because they aren't having the effect they wanted or they find it too much trouble.

 

New cachers often perceive a few problems that, IMO, are not really there (or at least are not that serious). A area may appear to be saturated with all the good places taken. In reality there are other good placed if you just expand your radius. And you will also find that caches are archived all the time. Watching for spaces to open up means that you may yet be able to place the cache if you are just patient.

 

Newbies often suggest the idea of automatically archiving caches that have lots of DNFs or that have a Needs Maintenance that the owner hasn't cleared. IMO, some newbies get so excited and into the game that they don't realize most other players have a life outside of geocaching. The website says you should take care of maintenance issues in a few weeks. But the truth is that most caches owners take considerably longer. Sometime they need a nudge with a needs archive log. That also makes the reviewer aware, and if the problem isn't correct after some period, the reviewer can archive the cache. Eventually however the problem will be fixed or the cache will be archived.

 

When you've been around a while, you realize that these issues are not that serious. You will seen caches come and go. Some owners will put in a lot of effort to make sure you have a good caching experience, others will place a cache a forget about it. In the end you can imagine whose caches last and whose get archived.

Excellent advise, I really was just trying to findout of this sort of thing does happen, didnt mean to imply anything, i was just trying to understand motivation behind some things i saw.

 

Great post thanks!

Link to comment

Hi everyone,

 

We discussed this subject in our forum, with several goods points for all the sides of the discussion - "maintain the guidelined distance between caches", "increase it" and "reduce it". We also opened a poll for the subject. Results were as follow:

 

- Maintain the distance - 9 votes

- Reduce the distance - 2 votes

- Increase the distance - 16 votes

 

You can find the discussion and poll in [link removed] (in Portuguese)

Edited by Keystone
links to polls aren't permitted
Link to comment

I say, "Leave things as they are!" There are enough worthless caches out there already. And by worthless I mean that the only thing they're good for is adding to one's "Found it" counter. If the saturation rule is changed as suggested, I dare say that pretty soon the "number crunchers" would see to it that we had a "Forever" cache hidden at half the lamp posts in every Wal*Mart parking lot, despite the fact that one such cache is already one too many.

Link to comment

 

Perhaps we should propose a membership saturation guideline for highly populated areas instead? :laughing:

 

How about a bid system for those 'highly desirable' areas in the cities?

 

High bidder gets exclusive rights to hide caches in the area.

 

Proximity inside the area is reduced to...oh...200 feet, except that no cache (or physical stage of a multi or puzzle) can be within 528 feet of another cache in a different 'district'.

 

After two years, 'ownership' of the 'district' comes up for auction again, and if the current 'owner' looses the bidding, all his caches get archived except that the new 'owner' may choose to adopt them/some at his discretion.

 

Ten percent of the proceeds (yes, we're talking actual $$$ here) goes to the lillypad for administrative costs, and the rest goes to some local charity.

Link to comment

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?

I'm not with you.

 

The 0.10 mile guideline is the foundation for far too many land manager policies. Many already ask for more distance.

 

"Saturation" at the 528' mark isn't a problem for everyone, everywhere. Sure, there are areas that are jam packed at the current distances. But that is the entire purpose of having this "growth boundary" for Geocaching--to allow caches to saturate to a point. It just so happens that some areas are worse than others when it comes to being saturated. ...

 

We are also not with you.

 

As NeverSummer noted, many land managers feel that the 161 metres/0.10 mile is TOO close and ask for more distance. If we want to keep geocaching viewed as an environmentally friendly activity, then we need to keep the distance as is or we could have geocaching banned in more areas.

 

Up here in Canada, the National Parks require permits. The Elk Island National Park recently permitted geocaching through the efforts of a local geocacher. The park official went with him to approve the spot. Putting caches in trees is illegal in the City of Calgary! No bird houses or MISTS there. The City of Vancouver is reviewing its geocaching policy and the BCGA is attempting to persuade them that geocaching does not harm the parks.

 

If an area is getting full, then wait for a cache to get archived or go for a drive and discover a new area. Until then, enjoy being able to increase your finds!

Link to comment

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?

You don't think we have enough micros already?

Link to comment

There is too many caches, there is a little space. This is reason, why cache dedicated to townhall is placed in forest five kilometers away. Also in the neighboring town. We need space for new caches. I vote for 100m. If we want millions more caches, we need to do something about it.

 

Your post once again demonstrates what I have written above. Newer cachers tend to focus on something different than oldtimers. My focus is not on the number of new caches and I do not think at all that another million is healthy for the areas where there are already too many caches anyway (and where there is a non-neglectable risk that geocaching will be restricted considerably as it has already happened in several areas around the world). There is no need to have a cache dedicated to every single object in a village/town. Moreover one can combine showing many locations within a single cache. If you book a guided city tour, no one will book a separate tour for each sight. If one just wants to have a list of all object within a town, someone might want to visit for whatever reason, Waymarking is the way to go in my opinion.

 

Cezanne

If you want to see multiple sights in one trip, a multicache is the way to go. Waymarking is not about to catch on.
Link to comment

 

Perhaps we should propose a membership saturation guideline for highly populated areas instead? :laughing:

 

How about a bid system for those 'highly desirable' areas in the cities?

 

High bidder gets exclusive rights to hide caches in the area.

 

Proximity inside the area is reduced to...oh...200 feet, except that no cache (or physical stage of a multi or puzzle) can be within 528 feet of another cache in a different 'district'.

 

After two years, 'ownership' of the 'district' comes up for auction again, and if the current 'owner' looses the bidding, all his caches get archived except that the new 'owner' may choose to adopt them/some at his discretion.

 

Ten percent of the proceeds (yes, we're talking actual $$$ here) goes to the lillypad for administrative costs, and the rest goes to some local charity.

That would reduce geocaching to a rich-people game. I wouldn't have the money to outbid my local cachers.
Link to comment

 

Perhaps we should propose a membership saturation guideline for highly populated areas instead? :laughing:

 

How about a bid system for those 'highly desirable' areas in the cities?

 

High bidder gets exclusive rights to hide caches in the area.

 

Proximity inside the area is reduced to...oh...200 feet, except that no cache (or physical stage of a multi or puzzle) can be within 528 feet of another cache in a different 'district'.

 

After two years, 'ownership' of the 'district' comes up for auction again, and if the current 'owner' looses the bidding, all his caches get archived except that the new 'owner' may choose to adopt them/some at his discretion.

 

Ten percent of the proceeds (yes, we're talking actual $$$ here) goes to the lillypad for administrative costs, and the rest goes to some local charity.

That would reduce geocaching to a rich-people game. I wouldn't have the money to outbid my local cachers.

Now you're getting it. Excellent...

excellent-mr-burns.gif

Link to comment

My personal opinions on the subject:

 

There's a whole lot of caches out there

There's a whole lot of unused real estate

Unmaintained caches should be archived

Not every spot needs a geocache

Mot ever spot is appropriate for a geocache

The 528 foot rule is a bare-minimum distance, not a goal to try and beat

If you REALLY want the spot, contact the original owner

We do not need to reduce the distance between caches.

Link to comment

There is only really one variance on the separation distance that I would like to see changed and that involves multi and puzzle caches. I have had newly placed caches rejected because a leg of a multi or puzzle cache was within the separation minimum. Some of the caches started miles away and only until I submitted did we find out that a physical leg was too close. For subsequent legs of multi or puzzle caches at least change the distance allowed of other caches to be about 100 - 150 feet.

 

Just my 2 cents worth - hey, wait am I getting short changed? [:)]

Link to comment

I definitely think it should be lowered! There are so many Geocaches out there now days and Geocachers who have been doing this for so long they have 250+ Geocaches that there just isn't the room for new and more creative Geocaches and for new Geocachers to enjoy having the opportunity to place their own!! Ruins the sport a bit, I think. :(

Link to comment

There is only really one variance on the separation distance that I would like to see changed and that involves multi and puzzle caches. I have had newly placed caches rejected because a leg of a multi or puzzle cache was within the separation minimum. Some of the caches started miles away and only until I submitted did we find out that a physical leg was too close. For subsequent legs of multi or puzzle caches at least change the distance allowed of other caches to be about 100 - 150 feet.

 

Just my 2 cents worth - hey, wait am I getting short changed? [:)]

 

 

If anything I definitely agree with you here!! I really hate having a larger cache of mine in a great place rejected because some film canister in a light pole skirt or a hide-a-key on a guardrail by the woods for a puzzle are in the way and the saturation requirement causes a huge wooded area that could have been used for a larger cache like an ammo box or something like that is completely or almost completely blocked off! So I think if anything gets changed then it should be that!

Link to comment

There is only really one variance on the separation distance that I would like to see changed and that involves multi and puzzle caches. I have had newly placed caches rejected because a leg of a multi or puzzle cache was within the separation minimum. Some of the caches started miles away and only until I submitted did we find out that a physical leg was too close. For subsequent legs of multi or puzzle caches at least change the distance allowed of other caches to be about 100 - 150 feet.

 

Just my 2 cents worth - hey, wait am I getting short changed? [:)]

 

If anything I definitely agree with you here!! I really hate having a larger cache of mine in a great place rejected because some film canister in a light pole skirt or a hide-a-key on a guardrail by the woods for a puzzle are in the way and the saturation requirement causes a huge wooded area that could have been used for a larger cache like an ammo box or something like that is completely or almost completely blocked off! So I think if anything gets changed then it should be that!

I see two reason for relaxing the 528 foot rule with regards to hidden waypoints. First, one has to either find all the multis and puzzles (and that may include caches with a posted coordinated over two miles away), or take a crap shoot and place the new cache, risking that it may be rejected. The other is that often the location of multi stage or puzzle cache can be determined by looking for gaps in a trail that are .2 mile appart. I believe that allowing other caches to be closer to hidden waypoints (100 to 200 feet), would reduce the occurrence of both issues.

 

I certainly don't see the size of a cache as a reason for changing the saturation guidelines. I see time and again that someone thinks their ammo can deserves an exeception when it is blocked by a film canister. Personally, I think that makes as much sense as saying that pink caches should not be blocked by green ones.

Link to comment

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?

 

I am also annoyed with the 0.1 mile cache saturation rule. I want to increase the distance to, say, .25 mile.

Link to comment

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

I'd be on board with nice round numbers, but could they please be in meters? You know, the unit 90% of the world uses.

Now, neither the foot measurement (528) nor the metric equivalent are round numbers. The only round number is 0.1 mile. I think it's unlikely to change any time soon because it works well in most places. In some limited areas, there may not be much opportunity for new caches. However, the distance isn't huge - I'm often surprised at how close one cache can be to the next.

Link to comment

 

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. :ph34r:

 

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.

 

My vote is also for 100m = 0.1 km (both nice round numbers, a feature of the metric system).

Link to comment

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.

I've had limited success with getting exceptions. The first problem I had was when I tried to hide a cache 400 feet from another. The issue was that while the caches were 400 feet away by Google maps, they were actually a 30 minute hike away, because one was down a steep cliff that could only be negotiated by rappelling. The reviewer was not sympathetic, so the cache didn't get published.

 

Another example was when I placed a cache and learned it was 450 feet away from the FINAL of a multicache. In this case, he allowed me to contact the CO who was willing to let me cache be placed there.

 

Bottom line, if you plan to hide a cache, you better download all coordinates for surrounding caches.

Link to comment

It's not the distance between caches that I would like to see changed but the number that one cacher can place in an area. In other words I would like to see the distance between caches for one cacher expanded to 1 km or mile. This would prevent one cacher from carpeting an area leaving little or not room for new cachers to place a cache.

Link to comment

Make it 3/4 mile. Grandfather existing caches. This would limit saturation. This wont be done. People would be so annoyed they would stop playing. So loss of money for Groundspeak. Same if the rule was 50,100 feet it would get so cache saturated things would get damaged and undue attention from the public would happen. <_<

Link to comment

This would prevent one cacher from carpeting an area leaving little or not room for new cachers to place a cache.

It would also prevent one cacher from populating an area where no one else has placed any caches.

 

Personally, I'd expect most new cachers would be relieved that someone else is doing all the work of placing and maintaining caches where they'd place caches.

Link to comment

It's not the distance between caches that I would like to see changed but the number that one cacher can place in an area. In other words I would like to see the distance between caches for one cacher expanded to 1 km or mile. This would prevent one cacher from carpeting an area leaving little or not room for new cachers to place a cache.

 

Except it wouldn't, if someone wanted to carpet an area they could just create a dozen basic membership accounts and use them to saturate an area. At least the way things stand you know it's one cacher - if they did use more underhand means you wouldn't necessarily even know what was going on.

 

It's not as if everyone has an automatic right to place a cache in any given area. If a cacher puts out quality caches and looks after them why is it a problem? I'd rather have one cacher carper an area with caches that are maintained, than leave loads of gaps for new players to indulge their "ooh, ooh, I want to place a cache!" urges only to abandon it after a few weeks when the latest game on the iDoodad comes out.

Link to comment

Quick bit of background, I live in Hastings, East Sussex, England. You may have heard of it in relation to a little bit of rough stuff 6 miles away in 1066.

 

That said, the fishing village of Haestinga's People was founded about four hundred years before that, one of the first mentions of it being in 771 CE (AD)

 

Famous visitors/residents include:

 

John Logie Baird - Inventor of TV (hold it down Philo Farnsworth fans, I know all the arguments!)

Archie Belaney - AKA Grey Owl, one of the first Nature Conservationists.

Elizabeth Blackwell, first woman to qualify as a doctor.

Catherine Cookson, popular novelist.

Richard D'Oyly Carte, impresario and opera company founder.

Henry Rider Haggard, writer.

Anna McNeill Whistler, Whistler's Mother made famous in her portrait.

Princess Victoria, later Queen and Empress.

Plus many more.

 

In the UK buildings of historical importance, even if it is the location of an old theatre or music hall where a famous author read some passages from his works, or where they lived, or stayed is marked by a "Blue Plaque". This is normally a ceramic plaque placed on the building to denote it's importance. There are 22 plaques in an area 1751 yards (1066m) x 703 yards (642m) in the old town of Hastings. An area that also includes the steepest funicular railway in the UK and it's sister, a castle built in 1069 by William the Conqueror and history of smugglers.

 

So, it's a town with a LOT of history, a lot of events. Some of these cannot be twinned by being made into multi-caches or waypoints. I actually want to place a cache 132 feet from an existing cache, there is a history point I want to make with this cache, and it has nothing to do with the other. I would suggest that with the increase of accuracy of GPSRs now, the reduction of minimum spacing be reduced to 100 feet, in Urban Areas ONLY!

 

The 163m (0.1 mile) is OK outside of towns, otherwise we will be using film containers as stepping stones.

Link to comment

Quick bit of background, I live in Hastings, East Sussex, England. You may have heard of it in relation to a little bit of rough stuff 6 miles away in 1066.

 

That said, the fishing village of Haestinga's People was founded about four hundred years before that, one of the first mentions of it being in 771 CE (AD)

 

Famous visitors/residents include:

 

John Logie Baird - Inventor of TV (hold it down Philo Farnsworth fans, I know all the arguments!)

Archie Belaney - AKA Grey Owl, one of the first Nature Conservationists.

Elizabeth Blackwell, first woman to qualify as a doctor.

Catherine Cookson, popular novelist.

Richard D'Oyly Carte, impresario and opera company founder.

Henry Rider Haggard, writer.

Anna McNeill Whistler, Whistler's Mother made famous in her portrait.

Princess Victoria, later Queen and Empress.

Plus many more.

 

In the UK buildings of historical importance, even if it is the location of an old theatre or music hall where a famous author read some passages from his works, or where they lived, or stayed is marked by a "Blue Plaque". This is normally a ceramic plaque placed on the building to denote it's importance. There are 22 plaques in an area 1751 yards (1066m) x 703 yards (642m) in the old town of Hastings. An area that also includes the steepest funicular railway in the UK and it's sister, a castle built in 1069 by William the Conqueror and history of smugglers.

 

So, it's a town with a LOT of history, a lot of events. Some of these cannot be twinned by being made into multi-caches or waypoints. I actually want to place a cache 132 feet from an existing cache, there is a history point I want to make with this cache, and it has nothing to do with the other. I would suggest that with the increase of accuracy of GPSRs now, the reduction of minimum spacing be reduced to 100 feet, in Urban Areas ONLY!

 

The 163m (0.1 mile) is OK outside of towns, otherwise we will be using film containers as stepping stones.

 

You could make them Waymarks in the Blue Plaques category And those that have the space you make caches.

 

Personally I'd like the proximity limit to be 0.5 mile for new caches!

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment
Your "exception" sounds like a fabulous Multi-cache with points of interest for each stage. That would give everyone a walking tour of the area, and still allow them to find one box at the end.
Here's a multi-cache like that: Downtown Campbell Walking Tour. It has 15 virtual waypoints, taking seekers to 15 different locations, many of which are very close to other caches. Eventually, it leads to a 16th waypoint, where the final physical cache is hidden. Only the final physical cache counts against the saturation guideline.
Link to comment

I've been thinking of going to all the pharmacies, camera stores, party stores, etc. and collect all the micro and nano containers I can and then just start blanketing the US with a cache every .1 miles apart. That should come out to about 36.2 million caches (3.79 square miles in the US - the ~ 1.7 million existing caches).

 

Probably change my username to ".1"

Link to comment
Your "exception" sounds like a fabulous Multi-cache with points of interest for each stage. That would give everyone a walking tour of the area, and still allow them to find one box at the end.
Here's a multi-cache like that: Downtown Campbell Walking Tour. It has 15 virtual waypoints, taking seekers to 15 different locations, many of which are very close to other caches. Eventually, it leads to a 16th waypoint, where the final physical cache is hidden. Only the final physical cache counts against the saturation guideline.

 

It has a major problem: only counts as 1 find and that is the problem with the actual cache saturation policy. Virtual points of multicaches can show historical and interesting places but doesn't count as finds.

Link to comment
Your "exception" sounds like a fabulous Multi-cache with points of interest for each stage. That would give everyone a walking tour of the area, and still allow them to find one box at the end.
Here's a multi-cache like that: Downtown Campbell Walking Tour. It has 15 virtual waypoints, taking seekers to 15 different locations, many of which are very close to other caches. Eventually, it leads to a 16th waypoint, where the final physical cache is hidden. Only the final physical cache counts against the saturation guideline.
It has a major problem: only counts as 1 find and that is the problem with the actual cache saturation policy. Virtual points of multicaches can show historical and interesting places but doesn't count as finds.
I don't consider that a problem at all, let alone a "major problem". A lot of my Favorites have been multi-stage caches that [GASP!] gave me only one smiley each.

 

If what you care about is the smiley, then there are any number of 1/1 caches you can find. If you want a cache that takes you to interesting historic locations around town, then the fact that it gives you only one smiley shouldn't be a "major problem".

Link to comment
Your "exception" sounds like a fabulous Multi-cache with points of interest for each stage. That would give everyone a walking tour of the area, and still allow them to find one box at the end.
Here's a multi-cache like that: Downtown Campbell Walking Tour. It has 15 virtual waypoints, taking seekers to 15 different locations, many of which are very close to other caches. Eventually, it leads to a 16th waypoint, where the final physical cache is hidden. Only the final physical cache counts against the saturation guideline.

 

It has a major problem: only counts as 1 find and that is the problem with the actual cache saturation policy. Virtual points of multicaches can show historical and interesting places but doesn't count as finds.

If the problem with multi-caches is that you only get one smiley, then perhaps instead of petitioning for change to the saturation guideline what we need is a petition to change the number of "points" for a multi.

 

Sadly, there is a portion of the geocaching community for whom the point of the game is to find as many caches as possible. This group not only will avoid multis but will avoid any cache with a terrain higher than 1.5. It simply takes too much time to walk to higher terrain caches that could be spent finding more drive-ups. I would also petition that you get a "point" for each star beyond 1.

 

<_<

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...