Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Yes, the proposal I put forth could result in more puzzlea and multis (since it reduces the minimum distance between them), but it will also likely increase the number of traditional caches. It reduces the impact that puzzles and hidden stages in multis have on the placement of traditionals.

 

Under the current rules the local puzzle hider has blocked off large areas, either because they are too close to one of the puzzles or because hiders are unwilling to place anything other than the ubiquitous film can in a lamppost because it might get turned down. Under my proposal, at least until the puzzle guy hides a lot more puzzles, these areas will open up, as there is a better chance the puzzle will not block it. There will be more traditional caches and, hopefully, some better quality ones.

 

I would think that while the rule change will allow more puzzles and multis, that they will still cause less problems for traditionals than the current rule. Puzzle guy will have to go crazy placing new puzzles to see an effect tradionals. More likely these new puzzles will be placed in-between existing traditionals.

 

The change I propose could be seen an favoring a particular cache type. I believe it will provide the most relief to those who prefer traditional caches.

Meh...I thought we were onto something, but the overall .1 proximity just makes sense. Anything else will lead to abuse.

[+Fur and The Boys]

TLDR (everything - but did read most)

 

So a couple of comments on this.

 

1) The Geocaching app from Groundspeak has an option to only list Traditional Caches. We have this option set on our phones. I would assume that perhaps the rules should be reviewed, so that traditionals get their own proximity, not affected by other types. Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's a good rule. We live in a society that adapts daily, and changes our rules on a daily basis. heck there are some states that forbid you to have sex with the lights on. It's a rule, it's law, but it's outdated, and no longer applicable today. Likewise, a rule created at the onset of the activity, if it doesn't make sense, and it seems to me that many others are also not keen on it, perhaps it needs to change. I read a comment that said "we would never dare to ask Groundspeak to change it". Wow... we live in a democracy, and that screams of communism. WOW!!!

 

2) As long as its listed on a site and discoverable makes it not-trash. So I have a few internet domains, I can easily add a side menu for geocaching and list it. To make it more legit I will also list the other caches we have hid as well. I'm certain one of the few daily visitors I get to my site will see it, making it discoverable, and no longer trash.

 

3) We have found a couple of non-traditional caches. Each one was done when going out with other geocachers, whom were really poised to do it.

 

4) My children 9, 4, and 1 do not have the stamina nor the attention span to care for a multi-cache. They want the instant gratification to find a cache. I'll be damned if I threaten them to play or lose some other toys, that has got to be one of the worst parenting techniques ever. If your children do not enjoy something, you need to find a way to get them to enjoy, or look for something else. Threatening them is foolish at best.

 

5) The cache in question actually takes about 1.5 hours of my time to get to and back. And that would be straight there and return. I work long days, and do quite a bit of business travel for work. When I'm home, every waking moment is spent with or for my kids.

[+Fur and The Boys]

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

 

If your read it you will see this is not a cache for a family event, nor is it something I would call appropriate for my kids to try and solve. Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

 

I did send a note to the reviewer asking by how much we offend, but this should be a great example of why the guidelines do not make sense. That other cache is miles away from my location, so I wouldn't even of considered having to look at it. The cache is of the upmost hardest difficulty. I'm not sure which stage we offend upon, but the guidelines when put into place, certainly did not consider anything like the situation I am faced. So not a hardest difficulty, 5 stage cache is stoping me from hiding mine, even though I can only see the physical location of the first stage. Given the description of the cache mentions 13 total miles to find all stages, I'm guessing this one extremely difficult cache has a virtual lock on multiple areas.... shame!

 

I'm curious to those that know the history. When were these guidelines originally published with a 0.1 proximity? Were multi-stage caches available back then?

[+fbingha]

Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

 

Did you really just go there? Now it becomes clear.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

 

If your read it you will see this is not a cache for a family event, nor is it something I would call appropriate for my kids to try and solve. Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

 

I did send a note to the reviewer asking by how much we offend, but this should be a great example of why the guidelines do not make sense. That other cache is miles away from my location, so I wouldn't even of considered having to look at it. The cache is of the upmost hardest difficulty. I'm not sure which stage we offend upon, but the guidelines when put into place, certainly did not consider anything like the situation I am faced. So not a hardest difficulty, 5 stage cache is stoping me from hiding mine, even though I can only see the physical location of the first stage. Given the description of the cache mentions 13 total miles to find all stages, I'm guessing this one extremely difficult cache has a virtual lock on multiple areas.... shame!

 

I'm curious to those that know the history. When were these guidelines originally published with a 0.1 proximity? Were multi-stage caches available back then?

 

The amount of time you've spend talking about it, you could have done the multi by now.

 

I looked at the cache page and the logs are extremely positive and it doesn't look like it was terribly difficult for anyone to finish. You can always email for help if you get stuck. I wish I was there so I could do it. It sounds awesome!

 

Maybe you don't want to take the kids, but how about setting a positive example for them and make the best out of the situation. If you do it with a group of cachers and leave the kids with family/babysitter, it will be easier and more fun. Who knows...you may have a blast!

Edited March 12, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[4wheelin_fool]

Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

 

Did you really just go there? Now it becomes clear.

 

The cache was rather inspired by a Rush song.

 

Quick to judge,

Quick to anger,

Slow to understand

Ignorance and prejudice

And fear walk hand in hand...

[+niraD]

1) The Geocaching app from Groundspeak has an option to only list Traditional Caches. We have this option set on our phones. I would assume that perhaps the rules should be reviewed, so that traditionals get their own proximity, not affected by other types.

Until someone hides a well-camouflaged traditional cache on top of someone else's mystery/puzzle final. Then the owner of the traditional cache gets upset because people are logging bogus finds, and the owner of the mystery/puzzle cache gets upset because people are completely bypassing the puzzle.

 

Nah, I can't see how giving traditional caches and other caches independent saturation maps would cause any problems.

 

In the meantime, see the Help Center article Checking for Cache Saturation.

[+taybee]

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocachin....aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

 

 

I like to thank the owner of the Witch hunt for the answer to a Cache I have been working on after I had A cache turn down for Proximity reasons

my son got into puzzle cache because of the Proximity rule has been working on the other cache so we can move own one.

it's part of the game

get you son into the easy puzzle cache you may have same fun do them also.

After you solve the puzzle cache there become Traditional caches

 

keep on caching

[Pup Patrol]

TLDR (everything - but did read most)

 

So a couple of comments on this.

 

1) The Geocaching app from Groundspeak has an option to only list Traditional Caches. We have this option set on our phones. I would assume that perhaps the rules should be reviewed, so that traditionals get their own proximity, not affected by other types. Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's a good rule. We live in a society that adapts daily, and changes our rules on a daily basis. heck there are some states that forbid you to have sex with the lights on. It's a rule, it's law, but it's outdated, and no longer applicable today. Likewise, a rule created at the onset of the activity, if it doesn't make sense, and it seems to me that many others are also not keen on it, perhaps it needs to change. I read a comment that said "we would never dare to ask Groundspeak to change it". Wow... we live in a democracy, and that screams of communism. WOW!!!

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

The proximity guideline has worked well for years, and for millions of cachers.

 

If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it for self-centered, entitled folks, or "for the kids".

 

4) My children 9, 4, and 1 do not have the stamina nor the attention span to care for a multi-cache. They want the instant gratification to find a cache. I'll be damned if I threaten them to play or lose some other toys, that has got to be one of the worst parenting techniques ever. If your children do not enjoy something, you need to find a way to get them to enjoy, or look for something else. Threatening them is foolish at best.

 

You answered your own question. Stop dragging the whiny brats along if they aren't up to anything beyond simple caches.

 

But the problems with your kids is hardly reason to change the saturation guideline. I'm pretty sure thousands of cachers with young children have been able to find multi-caches with their kids.

 

Or perhaps you could attempt to encourage your kids to change their attitudes and recognize the fact that the world doesn't revolve around them. Maybe if they experienced different types of situations, they will have fun.

 

 

B.

[+MartyBartfast]

To start with I don't think the proximity rules should be changed, and I can understand that you have no desire to do this particular multi/puzzle so what's the way forward? As an owner of a multi I received an Email from another cache hider which basically said "I wanted to hide a cache at xxx yyy but it's been rejected because it's too close to a stage of your cache, can you please tell me where your stage is so I can relocate my cache" I sent him the co-ords and he moved his cache a little so it wasn't too close. I think that if you Email this CO, tell him the co-ords of the spot you chose and politely ask him where the offending stage is he'll probably tell you and you can move yours a little. If it really is a 13 mile multi then I think it unlikely that there will be more than one stage in that locale.

[+hzoi]

2) As long as its listed on a site and discoverable makes it not-trash. So I have a few internet domains, I can easily add a side menu for geocaching and list it. To make it more legit I will also list the other caches we have hid as well. I'm certain one of the few daily visitors I get to my site will see it, making it discoverable, and no longer trash.

 

What a brilliant idea! I've got a couple dozen caches I was going to responsibly pick up before we moved out of state. But I have my own domain, so I'll just list them there. Poof! They have magically been transformed, they are no longer abandoned litter, and I won't even need to leave the house.

 

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1) The Geocaching app from Groundspeak has an option to only list Traditional Caches. We have this option set on our phones. I would assume that perhaps the rules should be reviewed, so that traditionals get their own proximity, not affected by other types. Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's a good rule. We live in a society that adapts daily, and changes our rules on a daily basis. heck there are some states that forbid you to have sex with the lights on. It's a rule, it's law, but it's outdated, and no longer applicable today. Likewise, a rule created at the onset of the activity, if it doesn't make sense, and it seems to me that many others are also not keen on it, perhaps it needs to change. I read a comment that said "we would never dare to ask Groundspeak to change it". Wow... we live in a democracy, and that screams of communism. WOW!!!

 

Emphasis added. Summary: sometimes change should happen. That's great, but it says nothing about whether this change should happen. Additionally, Groundspeak is not a democracy. It never was.

 

2) As long as its listed on a site and discoverable makes it not-trash. So I have a few internet domains, I can easily add a side menu for geocaching and list it....

 

True, if you placed it with a purpose, intend to maintain it, and plan to remove it at the end of its use, then it is not abandoned, and it is, therefore, not trash. If, as you seem to be implying, you think that listed cache placements are generally no different than trash, then I question whether you, personally, have the right ethic to be placing caches at all.

 

4) My children 9, 4, and 1 do not have the stamina nor the attention span to care for a multi-cache....

 

Then don't take them with you, or don't do it at all and adjust to the fact that you don't know where it is.

 

5) The cache in question actually takes about 1.5 hours of my time to get to and back....

 

That doesn't sound like much to me, but if you're not willing to do it, then don't. Just be prepared to compensate for not knowing where it is.

[Clan Riffster]

So a couple of comments on this.

 

Just because it's a rule doesn't mean it's a good rule.

Very true. Bad rules should go away. We get that.

Good rules should not go away.

So, how would one define a rule as either good or bad?

Who decides? The person who pouts the most? Or the company that runs the site?

One method would be to wait till an entitlement junkie complains about it.

Cacher XXXX doesn't like this rule. Ergo, it must be bad...

Or, we could look at the history of the rule and its effect on the game.

Has it had a positive or negative effect for most players?

In the case of the proximity rule, I would tend to lean toward positive.

 

We live in a society that adapts daily,

An interesting analogy, seeing as how you refuse to adapt...

 

Wow... we live in a democracy, and that screams of communism.

I was not aware there were any functioning democracies on the planet.

I'm curious how you managed to get your 5 vacation caches published?

Since the country they reside in is a Republic, not a Democracy, one must assume you live somewhere outside the continental US?

 

2) As long as its listed on a site and discoverable makes it not-trash.

So, along with teaching your kids to give up at the first sign of difficulty, you can now teach them the joys of being spiteful & petty, just so you don't have to overcome a relatively minor obstacle? Awesome parenting skills...

 

They want the instant gratification to find a cache.

Our society is sliding ever closer to the "Gimme! Gimme Now!" state. You have an opportunity to teach your kids something other than instant gratification. And you stubbornly refuse to embrace that opportunity?

 

If your children do not enjoy something, you need to find a way to get them to enjoy

And for some reason, you are unwilling to apply this philosophy to geocaching?

 

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

Looks like a way kewl cache! Too bad it's on the other side of the Republic.

 

Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

I wasn't aware that educating children was a bad thing...

The stuff you learn on the forums...

 

but the guidelines when put into place, certainly did not consider anything like the situation I am faced.

They were created precisely to consider the situation you face.

[+dprovan]

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

 

If your read it you will see this is not a cache for a family event, nor is it something I would call appropriate for my kids to try and solve. Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

Oh! Witch Hunt one of the best caches I've ever hunted. Of course, you learn nothing whatsoever about witchcraft to solve it, unless you consider Taro Cards and funny writing "witchcraft". While each stage does involve some complicated puzzle solving that small children won't be able to help with, the physical stages themselves are just about the coolest things I've ever found on a cache hunt, and the kids will almost certainly appreciate them. If you like puzzles, it would almost be worth taking the kids to each stage to show them what you find there -- as I recall, most are hidden such that small kids won't be able to actually find them, I'm afraid -- but then go back by yourself later to collect the info to allow you to solve the next puzzle. The stages are spread all over town, so just plan to do them one at a time, and pick other caches near each one to satisfy the kids' requirements.

 

I did send a note to the reviewer asking by how much we offend, but this should be a great example of why the guidelines do not make sense. That other cache is miles away from my location, so I wouldn't even of considered having to look at it. The cache is of the upmost hardest difficulty. I'm not sure which stage we offend upon, but the guidelines when put into place, certainly did not consider anything like the situation I am faced. So not a hardest difficulty, 5 stage cache is stoping me from hiding mine, even though I can only see the physical location of the first stage. Given the description of the cache mentions 13 total miles to find all stages, I'm guessing this one extremely difficult cache has a virtual lock on multiple areas.... shame!

First of all, Witch Hunt is an extreme example, so it's not as if every multicache causes this problem. And since this cache is so well done, I -- and basically everyone that's ever found it -- consider it worth the cost. It is, admittedly, quite hard -- definitely not kid level -- but that doesn't mean it's unsolvable.

 

And while you might get the impression that it blocks lots of areas, it's just the same as 5 puzzle caches: yes, five 0.1 mile circles are blocked, but that's no more of a "lock" on an area than any other cache hidden there would be.

 

I'm curious to those that know the history. When were these guidelines originally published with a 0.1 proximity? Were multi-stage caches available back then?

I'm not sure this really matters, since -- I claim -- the fact that the 0.1 proximity applies to multis is generally considered a good thing. Originally, by accident, the proximity didn't apply: in the beginning, puzzles and multis weren't published with their stage locations attached, so there was no way to check their proximity. Fortunately, that's been fixed, although some older unknown caches get into trouble because they still don't have their final location on file. There's one down in Fremont that regularly gets signed by people thinking they've found a nearby traditional.

[+StarBrand]

Just as a thought exercise - What theoretical issues/problems/thoughts/changes would you have, if for some odd reason, the proximity guidelines for stages of a multi just went away???

[+tozainamboku]

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

The proximity guideline has worked well for years, and for millions of cachers.

 

If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it for self-centered, entitled folks, or "for the kids".

 

The proximity guideline likely is broke, at least in areas that are already densly packed. There has always been a problem that you don't know what hidden waypoints may be blocking your cache, but in cache dense areas this has become much more frequent.

 

One can still ask the reviewer if a spot is available before going out an placing a cache there, but this ia an extra step and one that can cause delays depending on how quickly your reviewer responds. Also for many, figuring out who their reviewer is, is almost as difficult as solving the puzzle.

 

However the OP seems to not be interested in either the suggestion to contact the reviewer or in any sort of considered compromise that might make the issue of hidded waypoints less of a problem.

 

Instead we are hearing yet again that Geocaching doesn't care about chindlren. If Groundspeak cared about the chindlren they would change the guidelines so that all caches would be large, have swag, be placed in child friendly locations, and not involve puzzles or multi-stages. And most importantly - No witchcraft!

[Clan Riffster]

The proximity guideline likely is broke, at least in areas that are already densly packed.

And finding a location that isn't already saturated with caches is out of the question?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I also forgot to mention this. The cache in which we are offending is this: http://www.geocachin....aspx?wp=GCWQ3B

 

If your read it you will see this is not a cache for a family event, nor is it something I would call appropriate for my kids to try and solve. Last I checked, teaching your kids about witchcraft isn't exactly smart.

 

I did send a note to the reviewer asking by how much we offend, but this should be a great example of why the guidelines do not make sense. That other cache is miles away from my location, so I wouldn't even of considered having to look at it. The cache is of the upmost hardest difficulty. I'm not sure which stage we offend upon, but the guidelines when put into place, certainly did not consider anything like the situation I am faced. So not a hardest difficulty, 5 stage cache is stoping me from hiding mine, even though I can only see the physical location of the first stage. Given the description of the cache mentions 13 total miles to find all stages, I'm guessing this one extremely difficult cache has a virtual lock on multiple areas.... shame!

 

I'm curious to those that know the history. When were these guidelines originally published with a 0.1 proximity? Were multi-stage caches available back then?

 

The amount of time you've spend talking about it, you could have done the multi by now.

 

I looked at the cache page and the logs are extremely positive and it doesn't look like it was terribly difficult for anyone to finish. You can always email for help if you get stuck. I wish I was there so I could do it. It sounds awesome!

 

Maybe you don't want to take the kids, but how about setting a positive example for them and make the best out of the situation. If you do it with a group of cachers and leave the kids with family/babysitter, it will be easier and more fun. Who knows...you may have a blast!

 

That's entirely possible but I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that "Fur" has a point, but with a bit of clarification.

 

To answer the question regarding the .1 proximity limit and whether or not it applies multi-stage caches at the time it was published, there are a few things to note.

 

The "offending" cache is a unknown/mystery rather than a "multi" cache placed in 2006. First of all, only physical stages are potential conflicts with a cache the OP might want to place. I can't tell how many stages there actually are or whether they're all physical stages since I haven't solved the puzzle nor found the cache. *Currently* there is a guideline that the final on an unknown cache should to be within 2 miles of the published coordinates. If the final is, indeed 13 miles from the published coordinates for that cache there could be several explanations. The 2 mile guideline was not in effect when that cache was published. I have no idea what, if any exceptions, would be made for a cache like this which appears to be sort of a puzzle/multi hybrid. I'm not sure a cache like that *could* be published today. Secondly, at the time that cache was published a cache owner was not required to provide coordinate information for every waypoint nor describe, in general, how that puzzle was constructed. That's not the case today.

 

I can be somewhat sympathetic to a portion of the OPs complaint based on the fact that multi caches do *not* have the limitation that the first stage must be within 2 miles of the final. There are, in fact, a few multi caches which cover hundreds of miles. My "regular" PQ that shows nearby unfound caches has a proximity limit of 50 miles. If someone placed a "cache across NY" multi with the first stage in Buffalo (about 150 miles from me), final in NYC, with a physical stage in Ithaca I would have no idea that the multi even existed until I placed a cache that was in conflict with one of the physical stages.

[+tozainamboku]

The proximity guideline likely is broke, at least in areas that are already densly packed.

And finding a location that isn't already saturated with caches is out of the question?

Yes, for some people in some areas. I would imagine that someone with small children in tow may have reasons that make driving a long distance to a location with less dense cache placement out of the question. Same may apply to someone who is just too busy to spend a lot of time driving to a cache. This activity, whether you like it or not, is basically local. Most people tend to cache close to home and particularly hide caches close to home. While there may be large parks and preserves (or, in your case, swamps) nearby, someone with small children or someone with physical limitations might not be able to put a cache there.

[Clan Riffster]

..."Fur" has a point, but with a bit of clarification.

I'll concede that he may have had a point, if he were new to the game and didn't know the finer points, and I'll even admit it can be a tad bit frustrating when you place a cache only to be booted by a multi/puzzle/letterbox that is many miles away from the spot you picked.

 

But he lost any shred of credibility when he threw his little fit of pique.

 

The proximity guideline likely is broke, at least in areas that are already densly packed.

And finding a location that isn't already saturated with caches is out of the question?

Yes, for some people in some areas.

Sorry Toz, I'm having a tough time buying what you're selling.

In the case of the OP, we know he is willing to travel quite a ways, as he mentioned this in one of his rants, whilst trying to defend the rather boorish behavior of leaving trache behind. As to the generic 'some people', I have yet to see it. I've looked at what the residents consider to be highly dense cache areas, and I have seen room for hundreds more in every single instance. A circle, 528' across, is actually a pretty small spot considering the size of this big blue marble we all live on. For someone to claim there is no more room for caches in their area is prevarication, at best.

[+GeoTrekker26]

A circle, 528' 1056' across, is actually a pretty small spot considering the size of this big blue marble we all live on. For someone to claim there is no more room for caches in their area is prevarication, at best.

 

Your point is still valid and I agree with it. Correction made only because I've seen this type of reference several times, including at least twice in this thread.

[Clan Riffster]

A circle, 528' 1056' across, is actually a pretty small spot considering the size of this big blue marble we all live on. For someone to claim there is no more room for caches in their area is prevarication, at best.

 

Your point is still valid and I agree with it. Correction made only because I've seen this type of reference several times, including at least twice in this thread.

Oops! Me culpa!

[+StarBrand]

A circle, 528' 1056' across, is actually a pretty small spot considering the size of this big blue marble we all live on. For someone to claim there is no more room for caches in their area is prevarication, at best.

 

Your point is still valid and I agree with it. Correction made only because I've seen this type of reference several times, including at least twice in this thread.

It is in a sense valid - each cache has an circle 528 feet across that no other cache's 528 foot circle can overlap.

[+Fur and The Boys]

I must say, many people here make far too many assumptions, and try to read too much between the lines

 

Slightly off topic: StarBrand is correct. Each cache (and physical stage) has a 528' circle around it, and no two circles can touch. Not 1056' as some have pointed out

 

When we go caching since it is a familly event we do pick saturated areas as much as we can. Best bang for buck. We also carry a few containers with us in tow. Like mentioned before we tried a couple multis and the kids hated it, since this is about spending time with them we want them to enjoy it, and myself and wife have no problem disabling all but traditional on our phones. I should also mention my son has an iPod and I will enable hotspot tethering on my phone so he can use the app as well

 

The cache in question. During this afternoon we packed a lunch and found a great picnic spot along the trail where we were finding other caches. Looked at our smartphones made sure no caches were within .1 miles (including non-traditionals) my kids picked a great spot, marked the coordinates and added the hide when we got home. It's not like we pre-planned this before and would email the reviewer for guidance.

 

It's not the first time we hid a cache like this. In fact of our 6 (now 5 because of muggles) hides only one was pre-planned where we used the website to mark the location from home. All others were hidden spontaneously via smartphone.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Fur and The Boys

[+fbingha]

Slightly off topic: StarBrand is correct. Each cache (and physical stage) has a 528' circle around it, and no two circles can touch. Not 1056' as some have pointed out

 

I really don't intend to be pedantic about this but the circles can overlap. The edge of any circle can not overlap the center point of another circle.

 

Run the "GoogleEarthCircles" macro in GSAK and you will see this quite clearly.

 

A cache could be placed anywhere where there isn't yellow/red .. assuming no hidden waypoints.

Edited March 13, 2013 by fbingha

[+Viajero Perdido]

Having glanced at the existing cache, I kneel down before its creativity and favorite points.

 

The other cache, simply, needs to move.

[+GeoTrekker26]

 

Slightly off topic: StarBrand is correct. Each cache (and physical stage) has a 528' circle around it, and no two circles can touch. Not 1056' as some have pointed out

 

 

Time for a quick trip back to basic geometry. Caches cannot be closer than 528 feet. Therefore a cache is in the center of a circle with a radius of 528 feet. That circle has a diameter of 1056 feet, said another way it is 1056 feet across. No other cache can be in that circle that is 1056 feet across. To place a cache you need to find a 1056 foot across circle that doesn't have a cache container. Nothing was said about circles intersecting as were talking about cache placement and density.

 

End of nits.

 

Now back on topic of cache density.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Time for a quick trip back to basic geometry. Caches cannot be closer than 528 feet. Therefore a cache is in the center of a circle with a radius of 528 feet. That circle has a diameter of 1056 feet, said another way it is 1056 feet across. No other cache can be in that circle that is 1056 feet across. To place a cache you need to find a 1056 foot across circle that doesn't have a cache container. Nothing was said about circles intersecting as were talking about cache placement and density.

 

This is a funny discussion, you have to admit. Both sides are correct on this one. There are two ways of looking at it:

 

1) Caches have a 528 foot diameter circle, and no two circles can overlap. This is correct.

 

2) Caches also have a 1056 foot diameter circle, in which no other cache can be placed.

 

The difference is in whether you're talking about one cache being in another cache's circle, or whether you're talking about two circles overlapping. You're both right. Now stop arguing with each other and get back to criticising the OP for abandoning his cache out there.

Edited March 13, 2013 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

1) Caches have a 528 foot diameter circle, and no two circles can overlap. This is correct.

 

This is incorrect. The 528' radius circles around caches can overlap (there can be an intersection of the circles). See the example above in Post #125. A given circle cannot overlap the center of another circle.

 

{edit for stupidity]

Edited March 13, 2013 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[4wheelin_fool]

Of course you meant radius of 528 feet and diameter of 1056. Two caches 530 feet apart have overlapping circles, but miss each other by 2 feet.

 

It's all about respecting boundaries of others, and the site. I'm just wondering why a cacher would place a cache 20' outside someone's window, such as the OPs GC30v3c. It may technically not be on their property, but there are other boundaries to respect. Most people would feel uncomfortable lurking so close to someone's residence.

[+murrayegger]

It's not the first time we hid a cache like this. In fact of our 6 (now 5 because of muggles) hides only one was pre-planned where we used the website to mark the location from home. All others were hidden spontaneously via smartphone.

 

You win some you lose some. If you aren't willing to work with the reviewer to find out how far and in which direction to move your cache and return to move it then you probably aren't willing to go back and maintain it. Maybe post the coords here and someone who has solved the puzzle can tell you which direction to go and how far.

[+StarBrand]

1) Caches have a 528 foot diameter circle, and no two circles can overlap. This is correct.

 

This is incorrect. The 528' radius circles around caches can overlap (there can be an intersection of the circles). See the example above in Post #125. A given circle cannot overlap the center of another circle.

 

{edit for stupidity]

If you go with a 528 foot diameter circle - then no 2 circles can overlap and that defines a cache's area neatly. If they overlap - then caches are too close together. That area can only be 'owned' by a singular cache or stage of a multi with respect to other caches (bringing this back on topic).

 

If you use a 528 foot radius circle then they can overlap each other but not the center points.

 

Either statement is correct.

 

I keep wondering (for arguments sake) - what issues do you seeing cropping up if for some odd reason the saturation rule for stages of a multi goes away?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1) Caches have a 528 foot diameter circle, and no two circles can overlap. This is correct.

 

This is incorrect. The 528' radius circles around caches can overlap....

 

I didn't say radius. I said diameter!

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Of course you meant radius of 528 feet and diameter of 1056. Two caches 530 feet apart have overlapping circles, but miss each other by 2 feet.

 

If you're talking to me, then, no, I didn't mean that. I meant exactly what I said:

 

1) Caches have a 528 foot diameter circle, and no two circles can overlap. This is correct.

 

2) Caches also have a 1056 foot diameter circle, in which no other cache can be placed.

 

If the diameter of the circle is 528 feet, then two circles that touch at their perimeter have centers 528 feet apart.

[4wheelin_fool]

Of course you meant radius of 528 feet and diameter of 1056. Two caches 530 feet apart have overlapping circles, but miss each other by 2 feet.

 

If you're talking to me, then, no, I didn't mean that. I meant exactly what I said:

 

1) Caches have a 528 foot diameter circle, and no two circles can overlap. This is correct.

 

2) Caches also have a 1056 foot diameter circle, in which no other cache can be placed.

 

If the diameter of the circle is 528 feet, then two circles that touch at their perimeter have centers 528 feet apart.

 

I wasn't talking to you, but to the person who posted just before me. I think everyone agrees, but are just arguing semantics at this point.

[+tozainamboku]

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day.

 

Oh, man, you're right!

 

Wikipedia

 

Not only is that a good coincidence, I can't believe you actually knew about it.

Edited March 13, 2013 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+StarBrand]

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day.

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day.

 

Oh, man, you're right!

 

Wikipedia

 

Not only is that a good coincidence, I can't believe you actually knew about it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if my nine year old son knows about it. He has a fascination with Pi and can recite 35 digits of Pi from memory.

[+Lil Devil]

Yes but in this discussion pie are squared despite the circles.

Pie are not square. Pie are round. Cornbread are square.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

 

I just found out that someone here at work is planning to bring in pies to celebrate. Count me in (on the eating).

Edited March 13, 2013 by nonaeroterraqueous

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I wasn't talking to you, but to the person who posted just before me.

 

Okay. I wasn't sure. I didn't want to pass up the chance at some good verbal pugilism.

[+ArcherDragoon]

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day.

 

Oh, man, you're right!

 

Wikipedia

 

Not only is that a good coincidence, I can't believe you actually knew about it.

I can't believe that you didn't believe toz knew about pie day!!! My world is blown...into 3.14159... pieces!!!

:blink:

[+fuzziebear3]

Yes, what kind of pi should we have? Pizza pie? Apple Pie? Cache-ew pie?

 

As long as the radius is 528 feet

[4wheelin_fool]

All this radius and diameter talk reminded me that tommorow is Pi day.

 

I have it circled on my calendar. Perhaps I'll nail a foot to the floor and eat some pi.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I can't believe that you didn't believe toz knew about pie day!!! My world is blown...into 3.14159... pieces!!!

 

Apparently, I'm the only one who did not know about pie day. It's nothing against Toz; I should have figured that if anyone knew about it, he would. I'm just waiting for national donut day, myself.

[+Off Grid]

Having glanced at the existing cache, I kneel down before its creativity and favorite points.

 

The other cache, simply, needs to move.

Exactly now what if the proximity rules come in place and the end of the multi is just garbage and your cache would come in showing history facta and you can learn

[+Viajero Perdido]

Exactly now what if the proximity rules come in place and the end of the multi is just garbage and your cache would come in showing history facta and you can learn

I cannot parse this.

 

What?

[+Off Grid]

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

[+TheLegoFool&Missus]

You try to place a cache near the end of a multi with out knowing the multi or puzzle cache ends there

 

You figure out the multi and the containers gross it hasn't been checked on and has no history or value and your looking at a cache you would put there that has history nice container might be maintained a bit better learn new facts etc

 

For an English teacher, you type very poorly.

If you could please use a little punctuation in your sentences, it would make it a little easier on all of us.