Petition to change the Cache Saturation policy

[+Markwell]

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.

The only "major problem" I see is that people can get so caught up in having a huge find count that they miss the experience of a great cache. As Tozainamboku indicated, caches that focus on their find count "...not only will avoid multis but will avoid any cache with a terrain higher than 1.5". They miss out on some great caches with this mentality. MAntunes and I have both been around since this game began, and our neither of find counts for caches (as listed on the website) breaks 1,000 - but there are some people that come close to that in a week. I'll stake my top 50 memorable cache experiences against their finds any day, but to each his own.

 

However - the point tony4in1 tried to make in his first post ever was that his special points should all be able to be listed on Geocaching.com. I was trying to show that it CAN be listed under the current guidelines without changing them for a special exception, but as a multi-cache instead of multiple traditional caches. In their hey-day in the Chicago area, in the third quarter of 2004, 17% of the caches placed were multi-caches. For each of the quarters in 2013, less than 5% of the caches placed were multi-caches.

 

My point however, is that the locations CAN be highlighted under the current geocaching.com guidelines. However, I will concede that setting these up as multi-caches will decrease the number of finders over-all due to how people can be focused on numbers.

 

I think this is unfortunate.

[team tisri]

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.

 

This kind of situation is a good example of where a one-size-fits-all rule doesn't work so well, but the trouble is coming up with an objective definition of why caches should be allowed to be more densely packed here but not so densely packed when someone else wants to put a film pot behind all four road signs at the same crossroads because they are all named after different types of apple or different princes or something.

 

As people say there's such an obsession with traditional caches and the "find in 30 seconds, like it on twitface, move on to the next one" approach that anything taking more than a few minutes will be passed over by a lot of people. Despite that, for those inclined to take the time to make the effort for one smiley, even though the same effort would have got a dozen smileys elsewhere, you could place a really good and enjoyable cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

 

For me, "It simply takes too much time" is a valid concern, not because the number of smileys per minute ratio is low, but because when I'm visiting a location that has a a walking tour multi like this I simply don't have enough free time to visit a dozen or so locations. If there are 16 historical locations I'd rather see several multis that went to 3-4 locations, then a final near the last location where a good container can be hidden. That way I'd at least be able to find 1 cache given a limited amount of time. If you look at various city guidebooks that recommend places to visit, you'll see them suggest tours based on how much time you have available (e.g. if you have 1 day available, visit these spots....If you have 2 days, take this tour...)

 

 

[cezanne]

If there are 16 historical locations I'd rather see several multis that went to 3-4 locations, then a final near the last location where a good container can be hidden. That way I'd at least be able to find 1 cache given a limited amount of time.

 

I mainly cache when I'm not on travel and I prefer longer caches. 4 short caches means 4 times searching, logging, taking care of muggles etc instead of having this stress only once.

When being on travel I'm busy anyway and I do not care about at how many places I found caches.

 

Also as a cache hider I focus on local cachers and not on cachers on travel or tourists.

 

If you look at various city guidebooks that recommend places to visit, you'll see them suggest tours based on how much time you have available (e.g. if you have 1 day available, visit these spots....If you have 2 days, take this tour...)

 

That's true, but there no physical containers are involved. So the presence of short tours does not change the experience of those who prefer long tours.

[team tisri]

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.

 

 

For me, "It simply takes too much time" is a valid concern, not because the number of smileys per minute ratio is low, but because when I'm visiting a location that has a a walking tour multi like this I simply don't have enough free time to visit a dozen or so locations. If there are 16 historical locations I'd rather see several multis that went to 3-4 locations, then a final near the last location where a good container can be hidden. That way I'd at least be able to find 1 cache given a limited amount of time. If you look at various city guidebooks that recommend places to visit, you'll see them suggest tours based on how much time you have available (e.g. if you have 1 day available, visit these spots....If you have 2 days, take this tour...)

 

So I guess the answer is that if you've got 16 historical locations you want 4-5 multis that each take in 3-4 of them and maybe a bonus cache built from clues in all of the individual multis for those with the time and inclination to do them all. The people with limited time get some multis, the people with more time get a bonus. And an extra smiley.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

 

For me, "It simply takes too much time" is a valid concern, not because the number of smileys per minute ratio is low, but because when I'm visiting a location that has a a walking tour multi like this I simply don't have enough free time to visit a dozen or so locations. If there are 16 historical locations I'd rather see several multis that went to 3-4 locations, then a final near the last location where a good container can be hidden. That way I'd at least be able to find 1 cache given a limited amount of time. If you look at various city guidebooks that recommend places to visit, you'll see them suggest tours based on how much time you have available (e.g. if you have 1 day available, visit these spots....If you have 2 days, take this tour...)

 

So I guess the answer is that if you've got 16 historical locations you want 4-5 multis that each take in 3-4 of them and maybe a bonus cache built from clues in all of the individual multis for those with the time and inclination to do them all. The people with limited time get some multis, the people with more time get a bonus. And an extra smiley.

 

That's pretty much it. If a single multi takes 6 hours to complete, and I've only got 4 hours available I'm not going to attempt it. If there were three multi caches instead, each requiring two hours, I might even just do one of them and spends the extra time at each of the stages learning about the history rather than racing to the next stage after acquiring the information necessary for the final.

 

 

[+dprovan]

That's pretty much it. If a single multi takes 6 hours to complete, and I've only got 4 hours available I'm not going to attempt it. If there were three multi caches instead, each requiring two hours, I might even just do one of them and spends the extra time at each of the stages learning about the history rather than racing to the next stage after acquiring the information necessary for the final.

I think you've nailed it. A 6-hour odyssey is likely to get old before I'm done with it, but each of several shorter multis can focus on specific elements of the area, leaving me in that "what's next?" state of mind as I complete each one. And when I run out of time before I completed them all, which seems likely, I'll still have accomplished something.

 

That doesn't make the 6-hour multicache bad, just less attractive to people like me. In particular, if I'm with my non-caching associates, they won't let me even start a 6-hour multicache. But if it's supposed to take an hour, I might be able to talk them into one, and if they like it, I might be able to talk them into another.

[+NeverSummer]

That's pretty much it. If a single multi takes 6 hours to complete, and I've only got 4 hours available I'm not going to attempt it. If there were three multi caches instead, each requiring two hours, I might even just do one of them and spends the extra time at each of the stages learning about the history rather than racing to the next stage after acquiring the information necessary for the final.

I think you've nailed it. A 6-hour odyssey is likely to get old before I'm done with it, but each of several shorter multis can focus on specific elements of the area, leaving me in that "what's next?" state of mind as I complete each one. And when I run out of time before I completed them all, which seems likely, I'll still have accomplished something.

 

That doesn't make the 6-hour multicache bad, just less attractive to people like me. In particular, if I'm with my non-caching associates, they won't let me even start a 6-hour multicache. But if it's supposed to take an hour, I might be able to talk them into one, and if they like it, I might be able to talk them into another.

On a personal level, I'd totally agree. I'm not likely to do a 6-hour multi (especially if it ends in a micro). I'd rather be taken on more, shorter tours.

 

But, we forget that this is the owner's perogative. Geocaching.com is a listing service, and owners can hide as they please within the guidelines.

 

That said, the guideline is 0.10 miles between physical geocaching items. Making that distance shorter just to allow a cache to squeeze in is still not a good idea IMO. Personally, I'd rather see caches spread out like this guideline requires. Then again, I'm not out caching with the hope to add numbers to my "score" every 250 feet.

[+dprovan]

On a personal level, I'd totally agree. I'm not likely to do a 6-hour multi (especially if it ends in a micro). I'd rather be taken on more, shorter tours.

Right. But having said that, if I lived nearby and could take it up and put it away whenever I felt like it, I'd probably think something so involved was wonderful.

[+NeverSummer]

On a personal level, I'd totally agree. I'm not likely to do a 6-hour multi (especially if it ends in a micro). I'd rather be taken on more, shorter tours.

Right. But having said that, if I lived nearby and could take it up and put it away whenever I felt like it, I'd probably think something so involved was wonderful.

Totes m'goats. I agree completely.

[+Chaircity]

I say if it ain't broke, no need to fix it

[+Walts Hunting]

I recommend it be changed to .5 miles so I can get more exercise on my bike between them.

[ZeMartelo]

I see this as a non issue. If a person has all the caches in the area then its time to work on a new area. Doesnt it get boring after awhile to go back to the same place to find the same cache type over and over again unless its for the numbers?

[+ADKer]

Mmmmmmmmm.........no.

 

Then again, I really don't live in an urban area...

[+Walts Hunting]

I agree with the need to change. How about a mile?

[+TheHarleyRebel]

At the moment it is ok, they should wait until it becomes very hard to actually place a geocache before changing the guideline.

[+velvetcurtains]

Right after I wrote this, I changed my mind. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by velvetcurtains
I changed my mind and thinking. Thank you.

[+fbingha]

57 minutes ago, velvetcurtains said:

is there any hope for putting limits on how many someone can hide? There are limits on how many favorite points you can have at a time, and they depend on how many caches you've found. That works. I wish it could also work for how many hides you can place. Like, for example, if people could do one hide for every 20 finds, it would add more variety to the experience. Or maybe say that people can only hide 10 per year, something like that. There are people in my area who have hidden 20 or 30 caches within a patch of just a few square miles. What makes this game fun is knowing caches are coming from different people from all walks of life. I like reading the different raison d'etres for caches from different people. Looking for them is fun. Unique caches are the most fun.  But when I find myself searching for a cache from a person when I've already found 5 caches they own in the same little area, it makes me drive 30 miles in the other direction to seek the spice of life, variety. 

Sorry. Such blanket generalizations like this are invalid.

I have 624 finds to 97 hides. By your logic, I should have only been allowed 34 hides. Ask anyone in my county who hides the most fun and interesting hides and I'll be surprised if most don't have me in the top 2.

And, also, you think hides by different cachers are going to tend to be different? On average THEY WILL NOT BE. They will be the same micro, cheap container in the same hiding place.

Your problems are very regional, specific to your area. Your solution would hurt other areas.

Edited November 28, 2017 by fbingha

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, fbingha said:

I have 624 finds to 97 hides. By your logic, I should have only been allowed 34 hides. Ask anyone in my county who hides the most fun and interesting hides and I'll be surprised if most don't have me in the top 2.

After a weekend on the ET Highway, you could hide another 100 (or more) geocaches...

Edited November 28, 2017 by niraD

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, velvetcurtains said:

There's actually a group of caches in my area labeled as "turf war." They are set to keep people from another particular location out. It even says so in the cache descriptions.

I suspect there's more to the story. This sounds like a tongue-in-cheek/inside joke to me. I doubt these cachers are doing anything malicious.

Quote

 I can see people being so passionate about this game that as soon as a new park opens, they scramble to populate it caches. Then there are those who throw a multi into a park the day it opens.  Either way, I wish both camps would think of others and leave it open for others to participate in the hiding experience.

That may sound good in theory, but how long should people wait to see if others will hide a cache there? If they have a few hides in the area already, would they be forever forbidden from utilizing that space for more caches? Do they need to wait a week, a month, or some other arbitrary period to see if anyone else wants to hide there?

Quote

Ill try to stay from assuming that people are intentionally monopolizing areas. However, if ten caches are placed within the first week a new park is open, it makes you wonder. Even if one or two people are monopolizing a space, intentionally or not, is there any hope for putting limits on how many someone can hide? There are limits on how many favorite points you can have at a time, and they depend on how many caches you've found. That works. I wish it could also work for how many hides you can place. Like, for example, if people could do one hide for every 20 finds, it would add more variety to the experience. Or maybe say that people can only hide 10 per year, something like that. There are people in my area who have hidden 20 or 30 caches within a patch of just a few square miles. What makes this game fun is knowing caches are coming from different people from all walks of life. I like reading the different raison d'etres for caches from different people. Looking for them is fun. Unique caches are the most fun.  But when I find myself searching for a cache from a person when I've already found 5 caches they own in the same little area, it makes me drive 30 miles in the other direction to seek the spice of life, variety. 

There are many reasons why someone might have lots of hide in a tight area. It could be that they really do want to monopolize the area (albeit unlikely), but another possibility is that it's simply close to where that cacher lives. There's a young CO in my area that I suspect gets around by bike, so his hides understandably tend to be not too far from home.

As far as limiting COs... why? If there's a CO that routinely hides low-quality caches and doesn't maintain them, then I'm all for limiting them. But if a CO is able to hide and maintain a large number of quality caches, what's wrong with that? Isn't that a good thing?

 

Edit to add: It looks like you may live in the Albany area. As far as I can tell, that area is far from saturated. If you want to hide a cache, it looks like there are probably lots of places where you could do so. Do a bit of research and exploring and see if you can find some of those out-of-the-way places that geocaching often brings us to.

Edited November 28, 2017 by The A-Team

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, velvetcurtains said:

Ill try to stay from assuming that people are intentionally monopolizing areas. However, if ten caches are placed within the first week a new park is open, it makes you wonder. Even if one or two people are monopolizing a space, intentionally or not, is there any hope for putting limits on how many someone can hide? There are limits on how many favorite points you can have at a time, and they depend on how many caches you've found. That works. I wish it could also work for how many hides you can place. Like, for example, if people could do one hide for every 20 finds, it would add more variety to the experience. Or maybe say that people can only hide 10 per year, something like that. There are people in my area who have hidden 20 or 30 caches within a patch of just a few square miles. What makes this game fun is knowing caches are coming from different people from all walks of life. I like reading the different raison d'etres for caches from different people. Looking for them is fun. Unique caches are the most fun.  But when I find myself searching for a cache from a person when I've already found 5 caches they own in the same little area, it makes me drive 30 miles in the other direction to seek the spice of life, variety. 

Geocaching is a world-wide activity and there are many parts of the world where there simply aren't 20 caches to find. Even here in Australia, caches are few and far between once you get away from the cities, for example Gunnedah, a reasonably sized town on the Oxley Highway in north-western NSW, has only 15 caches within a 50km radius. A proposal like this would effectively kill off the game in much of the country.

[+cerberus1]

8 hours ago, velvetcurtains said:

There's actually a group of caches in my area labeled as "turf war." They are set to keep people from another particular location out. It even says so in the cache descriptions.

Ill try to stay from assuming that people are intentionally monopolizing areas. However, if ten caches are placed within the first week a new park is open, it makes you wonder. Even if one or two people are monopolizing a space, intentionally or not, is there any hope for putting limits on how many someone can hide? There are limits on how many favorite points you can have at a time, and they depend on how many caches you've found. That works. I wish it could also work for how many hides you can place. Like, for example, if people could do one hide for every 20 finds, it would add more variety to the experience. Or maybe say that people can only hide 10 per year, something like that. There are people in my area who have hidden 20 or 30 caches within a patch of just a few square miles. What makes this game fun is knowing caches are coming from different people from all walks of life. I like reading the different raison d'etres for caches from different people. Looking for them is fun. Unique caches are the most fun.  But when I find myself searching for a cache from a person when I've already found 5 caches they own in the same little area, it makes me drive 30 miles in the other direction to seek the spice of life, variety. 

Off-topic from changing the .1 rule, but this is a popular theme, usually with new members coming in very late in the hobby, and feel there's no places left for them to hide.

We've experienced this "turf" thing only once, when looking for a nice cliff edge for a 5T.  One who proclaimed himself the area's "president"  was quite vocal.  I explained how little that meant to me (the other 2/3rds was kinda surprised I was being "good" )  and spent almost a week there.  No spots were to my liking anyway.  Of course he claimed on faceplant that I was scared off.        I believe that issues of this type are extremely rare.  

We know of many new areas where the park employees or volunteers  are cachers.  A state park close-by has a couple "tours" (multis) that are all only their hides.  That same state park charges a fee to "others".  Some park managers could have placed only theirs, and left the park off limits to others.  I think it's nice of them to allow others to hide there too.  We know of one park where all the volunteers are cachers.  I just see it as a nice benny for the work they do.   

We know of areas where you can't find enough caches to earn a favorite.  No hides either would end interest in the hobby in those areas.

My average is forty+ miles lately for caches I'll do, skipping all those nondescript hides all around me.   That's been that way for years now.  Those carpy hides don't make me drive outta my area, I simply disregard them (too many to place on ignore). 

[+colleda]

Almost a zombie thread, but not quite. Is saturation myth or reality?

ATM I'm in South Beach Miami, arrived yesterday. Where are all the caches? Big city, lots of visitors, sure to have plenty, not really at least not in South Beach. I've done all but one trad within reasonable walking distance of my hotel, there's still one left to get. There's one Mystery and two earth caches which I'm not really into. There's one disabled trad and another that was archived just before I arrived. Today I'll be on the hoho Big Bus and will hopefully grab some in the city. There's an idea, a series that follows the hoho bus routes for visitors (like me he he)?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

Is saturation myth or reality?

Exhibit A:
https://www.geocaching.com/play/map?lat=38.15508&lng=-116.11597&zoom=11&asc=true&sort=distance

[+Viajero Perdido]

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but it sounds like the petition backfired. 

 

Count me among the anti-voters.  I think the distance should be raised.  That would nudge the game back towards the woods where it all started, and away from cities and roadsides.

 

(EDIT: Sigh, another zombie thread and issue.  Thanks.)

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Viajero Perdido
Note to self: write script to detect zombie threads *before* posting.