Petition to change the Cache Saturation policy

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

of course...you can always pre-emptively set your own caches .199999 miles apart so no one can place them .1 miles apart ;-)

[+wuliwup]

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

 

but not for the rest of the world. 500 feet are 152,4 meters

[+wuliwup]

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.

 

I don't agree! There is also a world outside of the USA, where the space conditions differ very much.

European cities for examples have completely other structures in compatrison to cities in the USA. There are cities, villages,... with many interesting historical places close each others, which are worth to have a cache for example. You all only think in "USA dimensions". This is a little bit arrogant.

[cezanne]

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.

 

I don't agree! There is also a world outside of the USA, where the space conditions differ very much.

European cities for examples have completely other structures in compatrison to cities in the USA. There are cities, villages,... with many interesting historical places close each others, which are worth to have a cache for example. You all only think in "USA dimensions". This is a little bit arrogant.

 

I do not think that they think in US dimensions. Maybe it plays a role when a cacher started to geocache. I come from the same country as you and I live in a larger place than you and I still would prefer an increase of the limit. If there are several locations in a city close to each other, it suggests itself to include them into one cache and moreover, there are no saturation rules with respect to question to answer stages. It does not make sense in my opinion to have a container hidden every 100m.

 

Cezanne

[+wuliwup]

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.

 

I don't agree! There is also a world outside of the USA, where the space conditions differ very much.

European cities for examples have completely other structures in compatrison to cities in the USA. There are cities, villages,... with many interesting historical places close each others, which are worth to have a cache for example. You all only think in "USA dimensions". This is a little bit arrogant.

 

I do not think that they think in US dimensions. Maybe it plays a role when a cacher started to geocache. I come from the same country as you and I live in a larger place than you and I still would prefer an increase of the limit. If there are several locations in a city close to each other, it suggests itself to include them into one cache and moreover, there are no saturation rules with respect to question to answer stages. It does not make sense in my opinion to have a container hidden every 100m.

 

Cezanne

 

By the way the actual saturation rule is acceptable for me (161m) and should not be changed! The whole discussion is unrewarding in my opinion. I say: "Schlafende Hunde soll man nicht wecken!" ("Let sleeping dogs lie") .

Edited March 5, 2013 by wuliwup

[team tisri]

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.

 

I don't agree! There is also a world outside of the USA, where the space conditions differ very much.

European cities for examples have completely other structures in compatrison to cities in the USA. There are cities, villages,... with many interesting historical places close each others, which are worth to have a cache for example. You all only think in "USA dimensions". This is a little bit arrogant.

 

Huh?

 

Some US cities are very tight as well. You'll have a lot more space around you in rural France than in urban North America. In major US cities it's easy to find interesting places close to each other, much like in any other cities.

 

As for dimensions, perish the thought that a US company thinks in US units. If anything it's arrogant to assume everything will be rounded so someone else can have a number they like. Whether the units used are feet or metres the most important thing is that people know what the restrictions are and what, if any, allowances are made in special cases.

[+Team GeoCan]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again. I have whole sections where someone has placed a micro on every phone pole for miles down a road. That monopolizes a LOT of territory. I see that no-one has searched and found them for long periods and wonder why they are not archived.

Usually these are all micros, which means there are no swag containing caches in the area.

 

Micros should ONLY be permitted in areas which a traditional cache can not be placed, and allowances should be made which allow traditional caches, even if near a Micro. Frankly having NOTHING BUT micros saturating my area has resulted in my NOT searching, as indicated by my 40 finds in 11 years. I have several Traditional caches ready for deployment, but itshard to find an unoccupied area suitable, and that is made MORE difficult by micros on every telephone pole.

 

I am a FAMILY cacher and the kids want to find a CACHE, not a note.

 

I can't tell you how many times we stopped searching because we had climbed to a mountain top and couldn't find the MICRO. Its ridiculous.

[+wuliwup]

 

Micros should ONLY be permitted in areas which a traditional cache can not be placed, and allowances should be made which allow traditional caches, even if near a Micro. Frankly having NOTHING BUT micros saturating my area has resulted in my NOT searching, as indicated by my 40 finds in 11 years. I have several Traditional caches ready for deployment, but itshard to find an unoccupied area suitable, and that is made MORE difficult by micros on every telephone pole.

 

I think a reviewer is not able to evaluate or decide, whether a location is suitable for a small or larger cache or not. I know many examples in "not urban" areas or places, where a micro is the only possible cache. I have no problems with micros; on the contrary, I like them.

Edited March 5, 2013 by wuliwup

[+cerberus1]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

Seems these days, anything over a mile walk is hit rarely and there's far too many excellant hides that are much farther, lucky to have a visit a year.

And if it were to ever happen, there's no way a mass archive would hit only one cache size.

 

As you've noticed, micros have dominated the hobby. Things change. Not much we can do about that.

Travel. That's what I have to do.

[+northernpenguin]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

Seems these days, anything over a mile walk is hit rarely and there's far too many excellant hides that are much farther, lucky to have a visit a year.

And if it were to ever happen, there's no way a mass archive would hit only one cache size.

 

As you've noticed, micros have dominated the hobby. Things change. Not much we can do about that.

Travel. That's what I have to do.

 

+1 - my favourite cache trip so far in 2013 was to a remote-ish cache. After hiking a 24 kilometer loop on snowshoes, we were rewarded with having found a cache that had not seen a visitor in three years.

We also had another remote cache like that around here that got a cache placed every 162 meters all the way to it. Guess what happened .... the land owner that was ok with the remote cache suddenly decided they didn't like geocachers after all.

[team tisri]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again. I have whole sections where someone has placed a micro on every phone pole for miles down a road. That monopolizes a LOT of territory. I see that no-one has searched and found them for long periods and wonder why they are not archived.

Usually these are all micros, which means there are no swag containing caches in the area.

 

Archiving a cache that hasn't been found in a year or more would also knock out difficult puzzles, remote caches and all sorts of other caches that I think anyone would describe as "quality caches".

 

I found a cache in the outskirts of London recently that hadn't been found in over a year. I found another one a couple of years back, also within Greater London. In rural areas it's far from unlikely that a cache could go extended periods between visits simply because it takes some effort to get to it.

 

Micros should ONLY be permitted in areas which a traditional cache can not be placed, and allowances should be made which allow traditional caches, even if near a Micro. Frankly having NOTHING BUT micros saturating my area has resulted in my NOT searching, as indicated by my 40 finds in 11 years. I have several Traditional caches ready for deployment, but itshard to find an unoccupied area suitable, and that is made MORE difficult by micros on every telephone pole.

 

There are several cachers (myself included) who grow weary of micros everywhere. My find rate has dropped by 50% in the last couple of years simply because I feel less inclined to interrupt a good outing on the bike to hunt another film pot behind a sign or nano on railings. That said it's hard to see reviewers agreeing to be referee in an argument over whether something bigger than a film pot could be hidden. Adding new rules could easily encourage people to hide a film pot in a suboptimal location rather than an ammo can 200 feet away in a prime location just so they could make an easier case that a film pot was all they could hide.

 

I can't tell you how many times we stopped searching because we had climbed to a mountain top and couldn't find the MICRO. Its ridiculous.

 

For all your frustration is understandable I have to ask whether climbing the mountain and presumably enjoying some pretty good views from the top suddenly became any less enjoyable because you didn't find a film pot at the top of it? If you think of caching as an end in itself it gets pretty boring pretty fast. If you think of it as a means to an end it works a lot better. Caching took you to the top of the mountain, you got a good walk out of it and hopefully some good views. If found the container hidden at the top all well and good, if you didn't you still got a good walk and some good views.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again. I have whole sections where someone has placed a micro on every phone pole for miles down a road. That monopolizes a LOT of territory. I see that no-one has searched and found them for long periods and wonder why they are not archived.

Usually these are all micros, which means there are no swag containing caches in the area.

 

Micros should ONLY be permitted in areas which a traditional cache can not be placed, and allowances should be made which allow traditional caches, even if near a Micro. Frankly having NOTHING BUT micros saturating my area has resulted in my NOT searching, as indicated by my 40 finds in 11 years. I have several Traditional caches ready for deployment, but itshard to find an unoccupied area suitable, and that is made MORE difficult by micros on every telephone pole.

 

 

Are you looking to place a cache by one of these telephone poles? Those caches are only taking up real estate around a telephone pole. Venture a mile or more into the woods and I can almost guarantee you won't have saturation issues.

[+northernpenguin]

For all your frustration is understandable I have to ask whether climbing the mountain and presumably enjoying some pretty good views from the top suddenly became any less enjoyable because you didn't find a film pot at the top of it? If you think of caching as an end in itself it gets pretty boring pretty fast. If you think of it as a means to an end it works a lot better. Caching took you to the top of the mountain, you got a good walk out of it and hopefully some good views. If found the container hidden at the top all well and good, if you didn't you still got a good walk and some good views.

 

Well said!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

 

It would also effectively eliminate a good percentage of caches in many places in the world where saturation is never an issue. For most places in the world "all the good spots are taken" just doesn't apply. You don't have to worry about a proximity guideline when the nearest cache is 100 miles away.

[Mr.Yuck]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

Seems these days, anything over a mile walk is hit rarely and there's far too many excellant hides that are much farther, lucky to have a visit a year.

And if it were to ever happen, there's no way a mass archive would hit only one cache size.

 

As you've noticed, micros have dominated the hobby. Things change. Not much we can do about that.

Travel. That's what I have to do.

 

+1 - my favourite cache trip so far in 2013 was to a remote-ish cache. After hiking a 24 kilometer loop on snowshoes, we were rewarded with having found a cache that had not seen a visitor in three years.

We also had another remote cache like that around here that got a cache placed every 162 meters all the way to it. Guess what happened .... the land owner that was ok with the remote cache suddenly decided they didn't like geocachers after all.

 

You forgot to add that they were 100% micros.

 

So it looks like they're still there. Has the owner made any threats to want them removed?

[+northernpenguin]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

Seems these days, anything over a mile walk is hit rarely and there's far too many excellant hides that are much farther, lucky to have a visit a year.

And if it were to ever happen, there's no way a mass archive would hit only one cache size.

 

As you've noticed, micros have dominated the hobby. Things change. Not much we can do about that.

Travel. That's what I have to do.

 

+1 - my favourite cache trip so far in 2013 was to a remote-ish cache. After hiking a 24 kilometer loop on snowshoes, we were rewarded with having found a cache that had not seen a visitor in three years.

We also had another remote cache like that around here that got a cache placed every 162 meters all the way to it. Guess what happened .... the land owner that was ok with the remote cache suddenly decided they didn't like geocachers after all.

 

You forgot to add that they were 100% micros.

 

So it looks like they're still there. Has the owner made any threats to want them removed?

 

Yes, they are still there - though a few have disappeared along the way. My point comes from discussions with the CO who related the information to me. I regularly go hiking with the CO. It was an experiment that succeeded in his eyes to get more people to visit the remote cache, the downside was that the hunt camps did not appreciate that traffic, particularly during hunting season.

[Mr.Yuck]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

Seems these days, anything over a mile walk is hit rarely and there's far too many excellant hides that are much farther, lucky to have a visit a year.

And if it were to ever happen, there's no way a mass archive would hit only one cache size.

 

As you've noticed, micros have dominated the hobby. Things change. Not much we can do about that.

Travel. That's what I have to do.

 

+1 - my favourite cache trip so far in 2013 was to a remote-ish cache. After hiking a 24 kilometer loop on snowshoes, we were rewarded with having found a cache that had not seen a visitor in three years.

We also had another remote cache like that around here that got a cache placed every 162 meters all the way to it. Guess what happened .... the land owner that was ok with the remote cache suddenly decided they didn't like geocachers after all.

 

You forgot to add that they were 100% micros.

 

So it looks like they're still there. Has the owner made any threats to want them removed?

 

Yes, they are still there - though a few have disappeared along the way. My point comes from discussions with the CO who related the information to me. I regularly go hiking with the CO. It was an experiment that succeeded in his eyes to get more people to visit the remote cache, the downside was that the hunt camps did not appreciate that traffic, particularly during hunting season.

 

I too once hiked several miles (Kilometres, as you would say ) with him. Just so no one thinks I'm bashing him, not that anyone knows who he is. I am still confused as to whether or not there is a single, or multiple land owners in play there. But one could say we're way off topic, and I had another totally unrelated thing to email you about anyways, so stand by for that.

 

This is me being on-topic: This subject comes up often, and many people chime in, "forget .10 miles, they should increase it to .25 miles". I always thought many of the people saying this were half joking. I think it's good at 528 feet or 162 metres.

[+northernpenguin]

I too once hiked several miles (Kilometres, as you would say ) with him. Just so no one thinks I'm bashing him, not that anyone knows who he is. I am still confused as to whether or not there is a single, or multiple land owners in play there. But one could say we're way off topic, and I had another totally unrelated thing to email you about anyways, so stand by for that.

 

This is me being on-topic: This subject comes up often, and many people chime in, "forget .10 miles, they should increase it to .25 miles". I always thought many of the people saying this were half joking. I think it's good at 528 feet or 162 metres.

 

The topic about the specific caches has now headed off to private messaging, where it belongs. Which cache and who hid it is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

 

Back OT:

 

I'm a hiker type cacher, I appreciate a good walk to a good cache. But I'll admit that I have found a lot of urban caches and many of them were 162M apart from another cache. I am good with the current distance but if there was a change I'd want the spacing to be more. I believe the other pitched idea of pulling a Mun---,er, [barcode site] rule and having different saturation distances between a cache you own and another person's cache would go a long way to help the whole power trail / area saturation thing. I could place a cache 162M from your cache but I have to walk 300M from one of my own .... that sounds good to me.

[+geocat_]

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.

 

The OP is the same one who started another thread stating that Geocaching is like "traditional hide-and-seek", therefore, we do not need to sign log sheets anymore! All we need to do is "see" a cache!!!! How excieing I am going to head out and get a bunch of T5 tree climbs tomorrow

[+Harry Dolphin]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Sorry, but archiving year+ old caches is never gonna happen.

There's way too many hides that people are actually saving to get to them, simply because they're so remote.

Seems these days, anything over a mile walk is hit rarely and there's far too many excellant hides that are much farther, lucky to have a visit a year.

And if it were to ever happen, there's no way a mass archive would hit only one cache size.

 

As you've noticed, micros have dominated the hobby. Things change. Not much we can do about that.

Travel. That's what I have to do.

 

Yeah. I've got five that have not been found in over a year. And another ten that have not been found since last April. If cachers do not like a hike, or an evil mystery cache, or a combination of the two, that is their prerogative. But for those who do enjoy them: There they are! Go for them.

[+cerberus1]

I AM in favor of archiving THOUSANDS of caches, ones that haven't been found in a year or more for example. Lets make that AUTOMATIC so these locations can become usable once again.

Yeah. I've got five that have not been found in over a year. And another ten that have not been found since last April. If cachers do not like a hike, or an evil mystery cache, or a combination of the two, that is their prerogative. But for those who do enjoy them: There they are! Go for them.

Now that bridges are kinda fixed, it'd be closer for me to hit your area now.

Hike I'm all in for, but HD evil is (for me) too @$#%*& evil.

[+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.

 

I don't agree! There is also a world outside of the USA, where the space conditions differ very much.

European cities for examples have completely other structures in compatrison to cities in the USA. There are cities, villages,... with many interesting historical places close each others, which are worth to have a cache for example. You all only think in "USA dimensions". This is a little bit arrogant.

Arrogant?!? Wow! What are these "USA dimensions"?? My range is Northwest NJ to NYC. My caches range from the wilds of NJ to the most densely populated municipalities in the US. I have caches in four of the five most densely populated municipalities in the US of A. 56000 people per square mile! 53000. 45000. 26000. How does that compare to your area? (Hoboken, NJ has 30000 people per square mile. I need to hide a cache there.) And I have not had any problem hiding caches in these places, with nice views. I'm working on a series now. And I will not have any problem finding great spots for these caches.

So? Who is being arrogant??? I would say that the flipper cover is on the other flipper!

[+wmpastor]

 

Your anarchistic views are quite entertaining, tozainamboku.

Why stop at 200 feet?

If the CO properly labeled their cache, there would be ... no reason caches couldn't be placed every two feet.

GPS accuracy limits AZ' "anarchistic" idea - every 2 feet is just too close.

 

At some point too many caches will start to upset masses of muggles.

 

Shouldn't we be talking meters?

[floridabiker1]

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.

 

The OP is the same one who started another thread stating that Geocaching is like "traditional hide-and-seek", therefore, we do not need to sign log sheets anymore! All we need to do is "see" a cache!!!! How excieing I am going to head out and get a bunch of T5 tree climbs tomorrow

 

Responding to the first quote, the case was as follows. I want to make a scale model of the solar system on a bike trail. I calculated all the spots the different planets should be (including Pluto which is a planet), and when I tried to submit my first cache, it turned out it was 200 and something feet away from another cache. This is what annoys me.

 

The "it" mentioned in a previous post is the cache in it's location. If you cannot climb trees, and cannot retrieve the cache, you can send a pic of it the CO and claim the find. People attach pics all the time and their log stays up!

[+The A-Team]

If you cannot climb trees, and cannot retrieve the cache, you can send a pic of it the CO and claim the find. People attach pics all the time and their log stays up!

This has been discussed ad nauseum in other topics, and I think quite a few people agree that if you can't retrieve a cache that's hidden up in a tree, the correct log would be "Did not find". Sending a photo to prove your visit is usually in cases where you do retrieve the container, but are unable to record your visit (ie. log is too wet to sign, etc.).

 

...or should I really be able to claim a find on this cache* because I can see its hiding spot from the edge of the pond?

 

*of course, you'll have to wait until the site comes back up to see what I'm talking about

[+frinklabs]

I would vote (if there were a system in place to do so) to keep the distance as is.

 

Pluto: not a planet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

[+redants]

Not interested!

 

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

+1

[+KRON family]

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.

[team tisri]

If you cannot climb trees, and cannot retrieve the cache, you can send a pic of it the CO and claim the find. People attach pics all the time and their log stays up!

This has been discussed ad nauseum in other topics, and I think quite a few people agree that if you can't retrieve a cache that's hidden up in a tree, the correct log would be "Did not find". Sending a photo to prove your visit is usually in cases where you do retrieve the container, but are unable to record your visit (ie. log is too wet to sign, etc.).

 

...or should I really be able to claim a find on this cache* because I can see its hiding spot from the edge of the pond?

 

*of course, you'll have to wait until the site comes back up to see what I'm talking about

 

Slight derail here but I've always found the prevailing opinion is that the correct response is to write a note if you can see the cache but not reach it.

 

A DNF suggests it may not be there and the truth is you did find the cache, you just didn't reach it to confirm your find. The note shows you were there, shows the cache is still there, but acknowledges that although you got to the coordinates you didn't reach the cache and sign the log.

[team tisri]

I'm a hiker type cacher, I appreciate a good walk to a good cache. But I'll admit that I have found a lot of urban caches and many of them were 162M apart from another cache. I am good with the current distance but if there was a change I'd want the spacing to be more. I believe the other pitched idea of pulling a Mun---,er, [barcode site] rule and having different saturation distances between a cache you own and another person's cache would go a long way to help the whole power trail / area saturation thing. I could place a cache 162M from your cache but I have to walk 300M from one of my own .... that sounds good to me.

 

So what happens when two people get together to build a power trail to get more caches in. All it means is instead of caches owned by A, A, A, A you get A, B, A, B etc. Just as many caches in just as short a space but a very modest bit of extra work for the owner with two (free) accounts.

[cezanne]

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

Edited March 6, 2013 by cezanne

[+KRON family]

Cezanne: Surrelly, there is no need to have a cache dedicated to every single object. Eventually, we needn't geocaching at all . This problem is currently only in cities like our. But what about in ... 10 years? What should I say to new players, which want to hide their own cache? "You should start playing a few years earlier"?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

The OP is the same one who started another thread stating that Geocaching is like "traditional hide-and-seek", therefore, we do not need to sign log sheets anymore! All we need to do is "see" a cache!!!! How excieing I am going to head out and get a bunch of T5 tree climbs tomorrow

 

Responding to the first quote, the case was as follows. I want to make a scale model of the solar system on a bike trail. I calculated all the spots the different planets should be (including Pluto which is a planet), and when I tried to submit my first cache, it turned out it was 200 and something feet away from another cache. This is what annoys me.

 

There's a scale model of the solar system in my town. The sun is located in our downtown walking mall, as are the first three planets. Neptune is located as the local science center a little over a half mile away. There's a mult-cache which required visiting each planet to obtain information for a final (which is actually a couple of miles away). I don't know how long your bike trail is be it seems that you might able to adjust the starting point such that none of the stages conflict with another physical cache.

[cezanne]

Cezanne: Surrelly, there is no need to have a cache dedicated to every single object. Eventually, we needn't geocaching at all . This problem is currently only in cities like our. But what about in ... 10 years? What should I say to new players, which want to hide their own cache? "You should start playing a few years earlier"?

 

Actually, I believe if some unfortunate developments in geocaching continue there will be not many places in 10 years where geocaches can be placed as I foresee serious restrictions by law and as there are too many cachers for geocaching to exist in the underground. Personally, I have always thought about hiding caches in order to show something special to others that has not been shown before. If all the special places in a region are already included in geocaches, then there is nothing to be shown any longer. New cachers can still take part by visiting those locations. If they want to hide something, they would need to select places at a larger distance. When I started with geocaching almost no caches existed and it was not uncommon that someone hid a cache 80 km and more from his home location. Now most hiders want to hide their first cache very close to their home (sometimes less than 1-2 km) even though they regularly drive 50km and more to find caches.

 

In my country the proportion of private property is very high (also with respect to forest areas and mountains). Even if a hider bothers to ask for permission, this permission is very difficult to get if the property owner has to expect many visits per year and if the traffic increases later, the hider who received permission on the basis of his promise that the traffic will be low appears like a liar. Some hiders deliberately set up caches in remote areas or areas with not many caches and/or include a longer walk/hike and/or a difficult puzzle to reduce traffic. If later on many additional caches are hidden around, this is certainly counterproductive. The change in Groundspeak's policy with respect to powertrails (which have not been allowed for a long time) has caused quite some troubles and will cause further troubles. So I still think that increasing the 161m limit would be more helpful for the future of geocaching than decreasing it (I do not expect that Groundspeak will change the limit at all.)

 

 

Cezanne

Edited March 6, 2013 by cezanne

[+speakers-corner]

Please leave "as is". The distance is alright as it is.

[+northernpenguin]

Cezanne: Surrelly, there is no need to have a cache dedicated to every single object. Eventually, we needn't geocaching at all . This problem is currently only in cities like our. But what about in ... 10 years? What should I say to new players, which want to hide their own cache? "You should start playing a few years earlier"?

 

Actually, I believe if some unfortunate developments in geocaching continue there will be not many places in 10 years where geocaches can be placed as I foresee serious restrictions by law and as there are too many cachers for geocaching to exist in the underground. Personally, I have always thought about hiding caches in order to show something special to others that has not been shown before. If all the special places in a region are already included in geocaches, then there is nothing to be shown any longer. New cachers can still take part by visiting those locations. If they want to hide something, they would need to select places at a larger distance. When I started with geocaching almost no caches existed and it was not uncommon that someone hid a cache 80 km and more from his home location. Now most hiders want to hide their first cache very close to their home (sometimes less than 1-2 km) even though they regularly drive 50km and more to find caches.

 

In my country the proportion of private property is very high (also with respect to forest areas and mountains). Even if a hider bothers to ask for permission, this permission is very difficult to get if the property owner has to expect many visits per year and if the traffic increases later, the hider who received permission on the basis of his promise that the traffic will be low appears like a liar. Some hiders deliberately set up caches in remote areas or areas with not many caches and/or include a longer walk/hike and/or a difficult puzzle to reduce traffic. If later on many additional caches are hidden around, this is certainly counterproductive. The change in Groundspeak's policy with respect to powertrails (which have not been allowed for a long time) has caused quite some troubles and will cause further troubles. So I still think that increasing the 161m limit would be more helpful for the future of geocaching than decreasing it (I do not expect that Groundspeak will change the limit at all.)

 

 

Cezanne

 

One of the few times I wish there was a "Like" button for forum posts.

 

--

 

Oh, and there's nothing quite so fun as discussing geocaching with a land owner who notices the power trail along or through the property for the first time, during the conversation. You'd be amazed how fast the acceptance drops off when the map looks like an invasion is in progress. I am aware of hiking trails that had permission - for the trail, not the cache - revoked due to geocaches along the trail.

[+Off Grid]

I see no good reason to change the limit.

 

 

i agree if you start lowering it you start having too many close together

[+MartyBartfast]

I certainly wouldn't want the minimum distance to be reduced, I reckon it's pretty much OK as it is.

[+FunnyNose]

I vote to raise it to .25 mile.

[AZcachemeister]

Cezanne: Surrelly, there is no need to have a cache dedicated to every single object. Eventually, we needn't geocaching at all . This problem is currently only in cities like our. But what about in ... 10 years? What should I say to new players, which want to hide their own cache? "You should start playing a few years earlier"?

 

Actually, I believe if some unfortunate developments in geocaching continue there will be not many places in 10 years where geocaches can be placed as I foresee serious restrictions by law and as there are too many cachers for geocaching to exist in the underground. Personally, I have always thought about hiding caches in order to show something special to others that has not been shown before. If all the special places in a region are already included in geocaches, then there is nothing to be shown any longer. New cachers can still take part by visiting those locations. If they want to hide something, they would need to select places at a larger distance. When I started with geocaching almost no caches existed and it was not uncommon that someone hid a cache 80 km and more from his home location. Now most hiders want to hide their first cache very close to their home (sometimes less than 1-2 km) even though they regularly drive 50km and more to find caches.

 

In my country the proportion of private property is very high (also with respect to forest areas and mountains). Even if a hider bothers to ask for permission, this permission is very difficult to get if the property owner has to expect many visits per year and if the traffic increases later, the hider who received permission on the basis of his promise that the traffic will be low appears like a liar. Some hiders deliberately set up caches in remote areas or areas with not many caches and/or include a longer walk/hike and/or a difficult puzzle to reduce traffic. If later on many additional caches are hidden around, this is certainly counterproductive. The change in Groundspeak's policy with respect to powertrails (which have not been allowed for a long time) has caused quite some troubles and will cause further troubles. So I still think that increasing the 161m limit would be more helpful for the future of geocaching than decreasing it (I do not expect that Groundspeak will change the limit at all.)

 

 

Cezanne

 

Very well said.

 

However, I must disagree...

 

I don't think it will take 10 years.

[+Team Bostradamus]

I think it's a good idea for the change... Plenty of places in my area would make great cache sites that someone decided to stick a GR micro in, but less than 100 yards away (as the crow flies)there's a sweet scenic overlook or a spot in the woods... It's mainly all hills and valleys here, and GR caches kind of hurt alot of quick hikes... I understand though that it would saturate parking lots and what not so I doubt it would change for that reason...

[+nevadanick]

I'll vote for ... No change !!!

[+JL_HSTRE]

I vote for keeping the limit 0.1 mi rather than lowering it. And I would support raising the limit to as much as 0.25 mi.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

"Voting" to this point:

 

Yea to shortening the distance = 4

Nay to shortening the distance = 34

Non-committal or Off Topic = 55

 

So... the overwhelming response is: agree to disagree is leading; the nay response running second; the yea horse hasn't yet left the gate.

 

Not much of a race, now is it?

[+tozainamboku]

"Voting" to this point:

 

Yea to shortening the distance = 4

Nay to shortening the distance = 34

Non-committal or Off Topic = 55

 

So... the overwhelming response is: agree to disagree is leading; the nay response running second; the yea horse hasn't yet left the gate.

 

Not much of a race, now is it?

Maybe there's a reason why polls aren't allowed in the forums.

 

I like to count the reasons people give

 

For shortening the distance

1. not enough places left in a cache dense area for a new caches

2. can't see the hidden waypoints so it's hard to hide if there are multi caches and puzzles in the area

3. the current distance is arbitrary, if the reason is to prevent finding the wrong cache, 150 to 200 feet would be more than enough

 

For not shortening the distance

1. Caches are already too dense, if anything the distance should be increased

2. The current distance is what it has always been so why change it

3. No reason given

 

Personally I find the reasons for shortening the distance somewhat more compelling.

Edited March 10, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+BlueDeuce]

I'll vote for ... No change !!!

 

Thanks Capt' Dave.

[+northernpenguin]

"Voting" to this point:

 

Yea to shortening the distance = 4

Nay to shortening the distance = 34

Non-committal or Off Topic = 55

 

So... the overwhelming response is: agree to disagree is leading; the nay response running second; the yea horse hasn't yet left the gate.

 

Not much of a race, now is it?

Maybe there's a reason why polls aren't allowed in the forums.

 

I like to count the reasons people give

 

For shortening the distance

1. not enough places left in a cache dense area for a new caches

2. can't see the hidden waypoints so it's hard to hide if there are multi caches and puzzles in the area

3. the current distance is arbitrary, if the reason is to prevent finding the wrong cache, 150 to 200 feet would be more than enough

 

For not shortening the distance

1. Caches are already too dense, if anything the distance should be increased

2. The current distance is what it has always been so why change it

3. No reason given

 

Personally I find the reasons for shortening the distance somewhat more compelling.

 

How does shortening the distance solve #2? It might postpone it a bit but the waypoints are still hidden and new multis will use the new shorter distance as well.

[+BlueDeuce]

As if Toz wasn't giving his opinion on the subject.

[+xipotec]

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.

[+larryc43230]

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